Silly Democrat Mayor wrote:Buckhorn anticipates sending Scott a letter soon asking the state to explore a way to suspend the law temporarily during the Aug. 27–30 convention. He hopes that would create a way to ban concealed weapons inside the city's proposed "Clean Zone," which covers downtown and surrounding areas.
There will be one place during the convention where concealed weapons will be banned regardless of what the state does or doesn't do in response to the city's request: inside the convention itself.
That's because the Secret Service will control access to the Tampa Bay Times Forum, the site of the convention, and it has said no one but on-duty law enforcement officers will be allowed to take guns into the event.
That means any law made in violation of "shall not be infringed" is not the supreme law of the land.The supremacy clause makes the Constitution and the national laws made pursuant to it the "supreme law of the land."
Well, a closer reading of the article says nothing about the Republican Party banning anything. It is a Democratic mayor moaning that he can not write a city ordinance that contradicts state law. Geez, we see the same moans coming out of Austin from time to time.smoothoperator wrote:If they ban CHL at their convention then I can't vote for any Republicans in November.
Actions have consequences.
Well, the Secret Service didn't mess around when President Bush was in the White House...events lately (with the current administration occupying the White House) would make it seem otherwise.Jumping Frog wrote:Well, a closer reading of the article says nothing about the Republican Party banning anything. It is a Democratic mayor moaning that he can not write a city ordinance that contradicts state law. Geez, we see the same moans coming out of Austin from time to time.smoothoperator wrote:If they ban CHL at their convention then I can't vote for any Republicans in November.
Actions have consequences.
As far as inside the convention center itself, it is the Secret Service itself that is requiring a secure facility. That is nothing new. I've stood in line to go through metal detectors to see President Bush -- the Secret Service doesn't mess around. Seeing as I've seen two Presidents shot in my lifetime, and another one shot at (but missed), I am not entirely unsympathetic to having a secure zone for presidential nominees.
Unlike typical "feel-good" Criminal Protection Zones that rely upon signage to magically keep out miscreants and other refuse seeking to wreak harm on the unarmed, a Secret Service security zone is actually meaningful. Access is restricted to people who have been searched/cleared and there is plenty of armed law enforcement presence to keep everyone attending safe while they are voluntarily disarmed.
If you think you can attend any function for either party's presidential nominee and stand next to the candidate while carrying your concealed handgun, that ain't happening in today's world.
When I run for president, this will definitely be the case at all my rallies.A-R wrote:at least have the decency to offer on-site secure storage.
you got my voteRoyGBiv wrote:When I run for president, this will definitely be the case at all my rallies.A-R wrote:at least have the decency to offer on-site secure storage.
speedsix wrote:...right, and I can hear the announcement at the end of the rally for the DNC:
" And we would like to thank all of you who participated in our voluntary firearm surrender event...the guns have been collected and are being melted down as we speak...you may keep your keys as a souvenier of your selfless sacrifice...together we can win against gun violence!!!"
Gotta love common sense.....in a letter dated Tuesday, the Republican governor elected with tea party support said banning guns in all of downtown would infringe on citizens' constitutionally protected rights to legally arm themselves.
Scott wrote "it is unclear how disarming law-abiding citizens would better protect them from the dangers and threats posed by those who would flout the law."
I've always wondered that.i8godzilla wrote:From the OP's link:
There will be one place during the convention where concealed weapons will be banned regardless of what the state does or doesn't do in response to the city's request: inside the convention itself.
That's because the Secret Service will control access to the Tampa Bay Times Forum, the site of the convention, and it has said no one but on-duty law enforcement officers will be allowed to take guns into the event.
Using what authority?
I understand that. But I'm still wondering if there is some law somewhere that gives the Secret Service the authority to prohibit firearms from certain areas.Jumping Frog wrote:As far as inside the convention center itself, it is the Secret Service itself that is requiring a secure facility. That is nothing new. I've stood in line to go through metal detectors to see President Bush -- the Secret Service doesn't mess around. Seeing as I've seen two Presidents shot in my lifetime, and another one shot at (but missed), I am not entirely unsympathetic to having a secure zone for presidential nominees.
Unlike typical "feel-good" Criminal Protection Zones that rely upon signage to magically keep out miscreants and other refuse seeking to wreak harm on the unarmed, a Secret Service security zone is actually meaningful. Access is restricted to people who have been searched/cleared and there is plenty of armed law enforcement presence to keep everyone attending safe while they are voluntarily disarmed.
If you think you can attend any function for either party's presidential nominee and stand next to the candidate while carrying your concealed handgun, that ain't happening in today's world.
From 18 USC 3056:When directed by the President, the United States Secret Service is authorized to participate, under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security, in the planning, coordination, and implementation of security operations at special events of national significance, as determined by the President.
While it doesn't specifically state they can disarm you, it seems as though it is between the lines. I see no reason why they would require (much less be able to enforce) a total sanitary zone in the general vicinity of the venue, however. In my experience this is not a draconian measure. The USSS does not mess around, but if you are a civilian with a legitimate need to carry and a specific reason to be there, there are ways to be vetted. I was one of two civilians who carried in the direct vicinity of former Pres. Clinton and others during a DNC Caucus meeting (in a blue state no less!) which was coordinated by USSS. I'm not bragging, simply stating that it can be done when reasonable and necessary. Note- I am also not trying to argue whose need to carry is more reasonable or necessary than anothers, mine at the time was a requirement of my employment. YMMV
