Only in America: Gunman waits outside town hall meeting for Obama - and police say it's OK

[marmar]

from the Daily Mail UK:



Only in America: Gunman waits outside town hall meeting for Obama - and police say it's OK
By Mail Foreign Service

Last updated at 11:58 AM on 12th August 2009


A 9mm pistol holstered clearly to his side, and holding a placard that references spilling the blood of patriots, this gunman is waiting for none other than Barack Obama.

But instead of being wrestled to the ground by police and taken away to prison, William Kostnic is left untouched - because it is legally OK to carry a weapon in New Hampshire so long as it is not concealed.

Kostnic was waiting for the U.S. president before a town hall meeting in the town of Portsmouth, New Hampshire yesterday. He stood in the grounds of a nearby church, which was private property, and police had no objections to his presence, MSNBC reported.

Even American commentators were taken aback at the sight.

'Just to be clear,' a baffled MSBC anchor said to the reporter on the scene. 'You're saying a guy has a gun in the open - where we already know there are concerns about every president's safety, but certainly this president... and the guy's just being allowed to stay there? Is that right?' ............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1205999/Only-America-Gunman-waits-outside-town-hall-meeting-Obama--police-say-OK.html

[CoffeeCat]

1. Great...

...one more example of the stupidity of this nation...reported in the foreign press.

By the time this country collapses, the entire world will be so disgusted with us that
we won't be able to escape. Americans will be the world's pariahs.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Welcome to New Hampture!

Our neighbors to the north are a bit peculiar, between the "Live free or die" license plates and the large stockpile of guns. But it's a pretty reasonable place.

[zipplewrath]

3. Quite honestly

Although I understand the sorta "oxymoronic" nature of the image, a guy that's openly carrying is very unlikely any real threat to anyone. He not only knows he ain't fooling anyone, it's almost a given that his entire intent is to attract attention to himself. A guy who intends upon doing harm generally doesn't want alot of attention before the fact. And I never really got a good look at what he was carrying, but at any sort of distance (which this guy was) a hand gun is going to be relatively useless.

[ima_sinnic]

4. multiply him by thousands, though--how can they watch all of them?

If he's allowed to openly carry a gun near the president, so is everybody else. Who's to stop however many thousands of people want to show up with their weapons? Hard to believe that New Hampshire, which I consider an armpit in the midst of otherwise lovely New England, is my neighboring state. If this asshole, who moved there recently because of its license plate slogan, "Live Free or Die," is typical, many dangerous morons have been drawn there, like flies to shit.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

6. at what distance do you start to take firearms or keep people out?

that is the problem. the definition of 'near' is kinda vague...

sP

[zipplewrath]

21. Outside the hall

Since Ronnie, they make some attempts to keep him in the car until he is in a secure area. If the guy was outside the hall, and in fact not even on the grounds, that pretty much puts him outside the secure area.

[Statistical]

17. Have the "town hall" on private property?

Secret Service is pretty good at their job. If they are really that concerned I am sure they could find a location on private property and ensure the President doesn't step out of the limo until inside said private property at a location that has no line of sight to public property.

[TheCowsCameHome]

5. He wanted to be challenged, and he failed.

Failure is the right's Priority One.

[Raschel]

29. Waiting for the President with a gun? This guy wanted to send a message for sure.

I'm sure he got the rest of the loonies salivating.

[mnhtnbb]

7. And protesters waiting for Bush during his years were in free speech zones.

How close do you think someone carrying a firearm would have been allowed near Bush?

[Crunchy Frog]

8. Only under a Dem admin.

If this had happened under *, they guy would have disappeared into Gitmo, and never been seen again.

[City Lights]

13. Exactly. They would have disappeared him. nt

[HopeHoops]

9. I lived in NH for ten years - trust me, I know...

On one of my stepmother's first visits, she practically took cover at the sound of automatic gunfire (yes, automatic). I assured her it was just some dumbfuck blowing up an old toilet out in the woods. The state is full of dumbfucks with guns. She lives in Montgomery County, Maryland, where discharging a BB gun can get you locked up.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

10. I don't think people nowadays realize what is meant by

"a well regulated militia". In colonial times, every man above the age of sixteen, I believe, was required to drill and be part of the local militia. The only exceptions were for those who were disabled or of such great age that they were considered liabilities rather than assets. In Massachusetts there were several wars with the Native peoples, and whole towns (like Haverhill) were destroyed, whole families wiped out. So of course every man, and probably most women, knew how to use a firearm. But they had a REASON to carry--they were under genuine threat. By the time the Constitution was written, the militia tradition and the threats of violence and war from Native peoples had been going on for over 100 years. It was this heritage upon which the 2nd Amendment was based.

Although the protester in NH had the right to carry a gun, I think he exercised poor judgment in the method he chose to carry it (leg holster) and the venue in which he chose to carry it. I doubt if my ancestors who fought in King Philip's War and King William's War would have acted in such a manner.

[Statistical]

19. I think your ancestors would have done exactly the same thing.

The only gun control laws in early US history were prohibitions on conceal carry.

The only legal way to carry a pistol would be publicly visible so that people were aware. The belief was that the only persons who wanted to do harm would want to conceal the fact that they are armed.

Any political function would have visitors traveling via wagon or horse from rural areas sometimes from days away. Given that highwayman did exist and a modern Police force didn't nobody would travel without being armed. When they got to the function they wouldn't leave valuables like firearms to be stolen so they would keep them on their person visibly.

So your ancestors would have acted in a very similar manner. Now that doesn't mean he should have done that (times change and all that) but from a historical perspective it would not be unusual to see many people visibly armed at a political function.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

25. No, sorry.

I'm talking 1676 and before. For one thing, their firearms were muskets and blunderbuses. For another, they were not taken into church or to meetings--it was written in the record as unusual if this was done on account of Indian raids. And I know there were no weapons allowed in the courtroom during the witch trials in Salem.

[Statistical]

27. He didn't enter a courthouse, meeting, or church.

Circa 1676 it would not be unusual at all to see somoene on the street with a firearm. No more than seeing someone on the street today wearing a hat.

[aikoaiko]

11. the horror: not detaining someone who wasn't breaking the law or acting in a threatening manner

:shrug:

[fascisthunter]

12. And if it were a Liberal during Bush's reign?

proof democratic administrations are far less totalitarian

[smokey nj]

16. The wrong t-shirt or bumper sticker was all it took to get arrested during the Bush regime.

[fascisthunter]

18. I remember that... and remember how they raided homes?

[smokey nj]

20. I remember the group of peace activists who were rounded up in Minnesota

shortly before the 2008 Republican convention. I also remember not being able to get within a few blocks of Madison Square Garden during the 2004 convention. Also, people doing nothing more than walking down the street were caught up in mass arrests in NYC.

[fascisthunter]

23. gee... wonder why the mainstream media never points that out

to contrast these rightards access to our President and others.

[smokey nj]

24. For the same reason they didn't cover all the peaceful demonstrations attended

by hundreds of thousands of people, but covered the ridiculous teabagger rallies.

[L. Coyote]

14. "police say it's OK" BECAUSE it is okay! Perfectly legal conduct is just that!

[Statistical]

22. Exactly. The poutrage comes from the fact that some people want the Police to stop lawful conduct.

The Police aren't suppose to decide what is "ok". The Police are suppose to enforce the statutes. The statues determine what is "ok" and they are passed by the legislature, signed by the executive, and are only quashed if by the courts if the violate other things we say are always "ok" (civil rights). So the Police did exactly what they are suppose to do.

1) Proper Police conduct is to enforce the statutes.
2) Statutes in NH states conduct was legal (or more correctly nothing states it is illegal).
3) Police did not arrest, molest, or harm the person conducting legal conduct in #2, due to the limitation on their actions in #1.

I guess some people would "like" the Police to arrest, molest, or harm someone conducting legal conduct. The problem with that is it isn't justice and it is dangerous because who knows what legal conduct the Police will decide is "not OK" in the future.

If the citizens on NH want this conduct illegal the proper avenue is for the legislature to <gasp> make it illegal not for the Police to make a judgment call and arrest someone for complying with the law.

Sad that seems to be such a hard concept on a Progressive website

[csziggy]

28. I think the police and the SS handled it just right - and let him look stupid

I'd bet this guy was expecting to be detained and that he was ready to fight after the fact as a cause for the groups he is in. So letting him stand there defused that ambition. And he looked seriously stupid standing around in a crowd with a poorly secured weapon that he claimed (in his interview with Chris Matthews) was loaded.

Yes, what he did was legal. It was not smart unless he was looking for a confrontation. And since the Secret Service and police were smarter - i.e. did not force a confrontation by trying to remove him - he and his groups lost face.

It is nice to see our government behave properly for a change!

[slackmaster]

15. People in the UK have an expectation of being wrestled to the ground by police and taken to prison

Even when they aren't doing anything illegal, at least according to the oh-so-scholarly Daily Mail.

That's very sad.

[Karenina]

26. Another Klieg-lit example of WHITE PRIVILEGE.