NH - Man Open Carries At Obama's Speech!

[Little Wolf]

A man open carries a pistol outside an event where President Obama spoke at in Portsmouth, NH yesterday. He was carrying a sign which read,

"It is time to water the tree of liberty."

A reference to the famous quote by Thomas Jefferson about how liberty requires the blood of patriots and tyrants to stay alive.

It is also nice to note that the chief of police of Portsmouth New Hampshire stood behind this man's actions, and reiterated that it was indeed his right to open carry there legally.


The following link contains the MSNBC news clip with the footage. I would post the video in the message here but I am unaware of how to do that (feel free to do it below for me if you know how for reader convenience).

http://gawker.com/5334956/lets-just...l-barack-obama?autoplay=true?skyline=true&s=i


Here is the same gentleman being interviewed later, on "Hardball".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/vp/32378192#32378192

 

[Mr_Rogers]

Kudos to the sheriff. The Secret Service makes its own decisions.

 

[CCWB]

I'll watch the clips later, but he had a right to OC and have the sign. Probably a bad combo, but he didn't break the law it seems.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Speaking one's mind... No problem

Open Carry... No problem

Carrying a sign implying its time to assassinate the present... I think that is a problem. The Secret Service will be paying him a visit for sure. I think he is walking a fine legal line here.

 

[tydephan]

Carrying a sign implying its time to assassinate the present... I think that is a problem. The Secret Service will be paying him a visit for sure. I think he is walking a fine legal line here.

It's referencing a quote from Thomas Jefferson, not Lee Harvey Oswald.

Note the complete quote:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Several threads on this already in this board, and all have been locked. I expect the same for this one.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Yea, I know the quote and I know it is from Jefferson. Jefferson was making that quote in reference to overthrowing the government, just like this man was. Making that quote while carrying a firearm at a presidential event is asking for trouble. If you like to play with fire, then do something like that. But I am pretty sure he is going to have some nice visits from the Secret Service.

This is a poorly veiled threat against the president, and an utterly stupid move on his part. It does nothing to help the cause of liberty. It didn't help Ron Paul for this guy to mention him in the interview with Chris Matthews.

 

[3pairs12]

He handled himself pretty well on Hardball.

 

[rbernie]

Popular subject:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=468306
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=468122
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=468233

Several threads on this already in this board, and all have been locked. I expect the same for this one.

And that's because the threads seemed to quickly veer into the 'he's an idiot! no, he's a patriot!' back and forth arguments with no clear profit.

And so the thread is locked.

I have no quarrel with unlocking this if somebody can PM me with some idea of the profitability to the THR mission statement in debating the smarts of engaging in OC at political rallies (or find any other viable topic in all of this)....

 

[rbernie]

I have been convinced that there is some value in debating the nature of this specific OC event, since it occurred at a political rally *and* because of the way that the LEO presence reacted to it.

So - the thread is reopened for FACT-BASED discussion of the above-mentioned topics. Name-calling or chest-beating about 'OC-vs-no-OC' in general is not gonna be welcome.

 

[Cosmoline]

He's a brave fellow! The Praetorians do not care about local law, or any law. And they will most certainly help you water some trees with your blood if you actually constitute a threat.

 

[Airman193SOS]

It is enough that he exercised his rights in accordance with the law. However, while we recognize what he did as something he is entitled to do, others will not, so it is important to get past the rah-rah stuff and keep the rhetoric to a minimum.

Again, it is enough that he exercised his rights in accordance with the law. That should be all we have to say.

 

[ChristopherG]

Wow. This is the first I've heard of this incident and I have to say I'm a little shocked. The fact that this guy exercised a combination of legal rights is not to be disputed; but the police should evaluate his actions with an eye toward the totality of the facts and circumstances.

Does anyone dispute what the man's message really was? Regardless of the quotation's noble heritage, IN THIS CONTEXT, it was either a summons or a threat to kill the President of the United States, was it not? And a legal right exercised in the wrong context is no longer legal; examples should be easy to imagine.

 

[USAFRetired]

Is this a case of "Choosing Your Battles"? or perhaps "Winning the Battle but Losing the War"?

I believe a little more discretion could have been displayed here.

With our newly appointed SCOTUS "Justice", we're going to have to be VERY smart in the way we wage the on-going 2A fight.

 

[KelVarnson]

Regardless of the quotation's noble heritage, IN THIS CONTEXT, it was either a summons or a threat to kill the President of the United States, was it not?

I don't see it that way. I see it as a reminder of who is in charge, or at least who is supposed to be (The People). 1st Amendment and 2nd Amendment being exercise simultaneously. That's excellent. I would have been totally comfortable standing right next to this guy.

To assume that this is a summons or threat to the POTUS, you are essentially calling him (the President) a tyrant. Is that right?

It took some serious guts for this guy to make this statement, and I commend him. He also did an awesome job on "Hardball".

And a legal right exercised in the wrong context is no longer legal; examples should be easy to imagine.

I've tried to think of some examples, but failed, maybe you can help me out.

 

[tydephan]

Regardless of the quotation's noble heritage, IN THIS CONTEXT, it was either a summons or a threat to kill the President of the United States, was it not? And a legal right exercised in the wrong context is no longer legal; examples should be easy to imagine.

I do not believe it to be a threat against the POTUS. The quote specifically says "patriots" AND "tyrants." Meaning, both sides are spilling blood. It is a direct reference to conflict, or "revolution," if you will. Not an assassination of just a "tyrant" or just a "patriot." Of course, that's just my take on it.

I have no problem with what the guy did.

Did his sign carry a thinly veiled threat? Absolutely. But it was a threat against the government in general, in my opinion. Not again President Obama. And in the end, isn't that our civic duty? To keep our government in check? We the people, and all...

 

[RobNDenver]

Actually simply having exercised his rights is not all there is to say about this story. I am a strong believer that goading law enforcement into an inevitable reaction is bad PR for the millions of responsible gun owners in the US. Seems like the local police in New Hampshire are pretty supportive of the RKBA until the law abiding citizen includes a veiled threat of violence. What then can happen is entirely predictable and offers yet another opportunity for the average citizen to discount our message as responsible gun owners.

I feel the same way about the goth teenager who walks around in a black t-shirt with the word F**K in big block letters. The constitution gives them the right to do it, but I don't like it and it forces me to: turn away and stereotype all goth kids as jerks.

This kind of in your face display of our rights as citizens will have no good result.

 

[USAFRetired]

Quote:
And a legal right exercised in the wrong context is no longer legal; examples should be easy to imagine.

I've tried to think of some examples, but failed, maybe you can help me out



Yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater is the classic example.

 

[velojym]

I read some of the comments on the msnbc link, and one stated that there's some natural human tendency to liberalize.

I'll agree and disagree. Using the classic term, yes. The human race, when allowed to progress naturally, tends to evolve into more individual responsibility, hence less need for government interference and control.
Unfortunately, as stated in another thread, Liberals have taken the term and applied it to just the opposite... complete government care/control. This, I would say, is DEVOLUTION, and not something any sane human should desire. What happened to kids wanting to grow up to be responsible adults? Seems like these people are merely wanting to extend their carefree childhood existence from the cradle to the grave, at the expense of those who still feel some responsibility to take care of ourselves (and our own families, of course).

How can one stand like that and proudly proclaim that they'd like to see the human race devolve to a mass of helpless infants? (rhetorical question, by the way)

Also, it oughta be obvious to all but a complete backbirth that an assassin probably won't be open-carrying and holding a sign two hours before his target arrives.

 

[ChristopherG]

Of course, "Fire". Or any use of "free speech" to intentionally disrupt a lawful assembly (goes by the name of "disorderly conduct" in my state).

And no, I don't believe President Obama is a tyrant; but I believe this man intends to dub him one--doesn't he? And his intention is what we're interpreting. To me, any attempt to avoid seeing the threat in this man's act/message is casuistry.

 

[average_shooter]

Yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater is the classic example.

And it's an absolutely horrible "classic example." There is absolutely nothing that actually prevents anyone from yelling anything they want anywhere they want. The catch isn't that something becomes illegal given a certain set of circumstances when otherwise it would be legal, the catch is that you are responsible for your actions. After all, what constitutes "crowded?" One other person, two, ten, every seat in the theater full? It's too ambiguous.

If the guy had the gun in his hand waving it around, he would be responsible for his actions. He wasn't waving it around, he didn't have his hand on it, it was just there. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Some people saying he should have been arrested or otherwise detained/questioned officially for this display is similar to saying someone should be arrested for talking in the aforementioned theater because after all, if their mouth is moving they might just yell "fire." It may be inconvenient, or even rude, but there's no real reason for it to be illegal.

 

[6-gunfun]

as far as i kno the police or secret service cant do a thing 2 that guy regardless of wer the presidents at as long as the guy dosnt pull that thing out of the holster he should be ok

 

[velojym]

I may be a lone chicken here, but I think it'd be great if the S.S. tried to detain this guy and were arrested in turn by the local constabulary.

Don't think it's gonna happen, though.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

There were two groups of armed people at that rally. The Police/Secret Service, and one lone citizen (unless we hear about some others, not known at this time). What's the big deal? Forget all that you know about other states. That was NH, and open carry is as legal as walking down the street. Apparently, no one, not even the president and his protection, have the legal right to subvert NH state law, and the RIGHTS that their citizens are entitled to. No emergency, or martial law existed, and it should be this way: benefit of the doubt, innocent until proven guilty, and not "suspcious" or "dangerous" unless there is some "probable cause", and apparently, walking around armed, peaceably, is not suspicious or dangerous (by itself). I'm sure a Secret Service sniper had him in his sights the whole time, too. Good that neither one of them got "frisky". I applaude him (NH citizen) for exercising his rights, and defending his actions as well as he did on "Hardball". I'll bet he is now on somebody's watch list, though, for the rest of his life. For exercising his freedom, speaking his mind, all in a peaceful manner. On a list in Washington, for life. Now what part of that is RIGHT? You be the judge.........

 

[travellingJeff]

I like this guy a lot. He didn't break any laws.

As for those that think his sign was "threatening", what about those of us that would have that as our signature? We all own firearms, do we not?

 

[ChristopherG]

There is absolutely nothing that actually prevents anyone from yelling anything they want anywhere they want.

Yes, there is: this classic example comes from an opinion written by Oliver Wendell Holmes (i.e., the SCOTUS) in Schenck vs. US in 1919. Some speech is limited; you can't just yell anything you want anywhere you want.

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

Schenck was subsequently overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).

Threats are illegal. The threat this man made inheres in the COMBINATION of several things:

He was armed with a deadly weapon.
He was carrying a sign indicating that tyrants need to be killed for the good of the republic.
He was in proximity to someone he considers a tyrant.