Defensive Carry banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Conservatives Are Afraid of Carriers, Too

4K views 105 replies 35 participants last post by  gasmitty 
#1 ·
#3 ·
Uh...it's MARYLAND.

Has nothing to do with Conservatives...there are barely ANY concealed permits in MD and the ones that do exist, has severe restrictions placed on them. It also has everything to do with the venue itself...if they don't want weapons, they don't want weapons.

Maryland has been a solid blue state for quite some time...Hogan is the first Republican Governor in quite some time. He'll never be able to do anything Pro-gun as long as the rest of the legislature is Democratic by a huge margin.
 
#9 ·
Agreed. It's a moot point for the CPAC to be a "no gun zone" because it's almost impossible to get a CCP in that state. It can be done but you have to have a darn "good reason" in the state's view for you to have one. Also, if the State "perceived threat" to you goes away, so does your CCP, no matter how law abiding you are during the time you were granted it by the State.

If anyone walked through those metal detectors with a weapon (permit from another state or not) they would be arrested immediately.

Wouldn't THAT make some great fodder for MSNBC and every other media outlet.
 
#4 ·
I have to wonder whether the prohibition was generated by CPAC itself or if it is some legal requirement from the state or venue.

I know that here in gun-friendly GA they still prohibit carry at certain large public events such as concerts and sporting events. If it is a legal or venue issue, they need to seek another location. If it is specific to the event they need to do some soul searching.
 
#5 ·
I think they are showing prudence based on venue and attendees. I would imagine the s/s has something to do with their decision making on the allowance of firearms.
 
#35 ·
Spot on, there are at least three candidates attending . It IS after all, in Maryland as well. Not attacking our rights, deferring to a sad reality in a peoples' Republic .
 
  • Like
Reactions: AzQkr and Rusty222
#11 ·
At least they have metal detectors and bag searches, rather than just banning guns with no attempt to really keep guns out. If every gun-free zone had metal detectors and airport-type security, I'd understand that they don't want guns in their venue but they were doing something to keep all guns out. Absent that, gun-free zones are just hunting grounds for homicidal maniacs.

“The policy has pretty much been no firearms,” he told The Daily Beast. “Some people got up in arms about that.”
Or, really, they got up without arms!
 
  • Like
Reactions: sdprof
#12 ·
Unfortunately I don't think you can look at every situation and paint it with the same broad brush and call it done...

There are always going to be places/times/events/etc. that are high risk, high security environments. I may not personally want to go unarmed but if they go to the lengths of having a visibly strong security presence and take measures, like the metal detectors, to ensure that everyone is adhering to the security protocol, I have a somewhat difficult time calling them hypocrites.

Also, let's not forget that (at least to my knowledge) nobody was forced to be there so that sort of ruins any 'infringement' argument right there.
 
#14 ·
As some may recall, the NRA annual meeting in Nashville last year went down to the 11th hour before a position was negotiated between the NRA and the Music City Center venue permitting concealed carry. And this was in a state that generally recognizes most other state permits. It is almost a given that any event in MD is going to prohibit firearms as Maryland doesn't honor any other state permits. It is unfortunate CPAC chose to host this event in MD from a concealed carry perspective, but the decision was undoubtedly made weighing many factors.
 
#59 ·
As some may recall, the NRA annual meeting in Nashville last year went down to the 11th hour before a position was negotiated between the NRA and the Music City Center venue permitting concealed carry. And this was in a state that generally recognizes most other state permits. It is almost a given that any event in MD is going to prohibit firearms as Maryland doesn't honor any other state permits. It is unfortunate CPAC chose to host this event in MD from a concealed carry perspective, but the decision was undoubtedly made weighing many factors.

Until it moved to the Gaylord a few years ago it was held at the Marriott Wardman Park in DC, itself a huge hotel, but besides the Gaylord, National Harbor has tons of hotels and great restaurants.

I was thinking pretty much the same thing. Besides in MD who would be carrying anyway?
Me. :image035:
 
#18 ·
Not really the same thing when you have a bunch of international targets with security details in tow.

I don't fault the Secret Service for wanting to be the only armed people in the room. I think it's apples and oranges.

This isn't a perfect world, and rarely are there maxims with no exceptions.
 
#22 ·
When I was lobbying the NRA last year trying to get them to reach out to Music City Center to get the anti-gun policy waived, I asked why the NRA would consider holding an event at a location that did not permit concealed carry. The response was there are only so many venues that are large enough to hold the crowd (78,865 attendees) that were also more centrally located in the country. And, they wanted to not go to the same city each year for a variety of reasons. That severely limits where they can hold them. In a conversation with one of the board members at the meeting I was told even the Music City Center wasn't really large enough as they had to turn away a number of vendors who wanted to set up displays.

I'm guessing CPAC likewise needs a large venue with sufficient hotels and a desire to move the annual meetings around the country to "spread the wealth". CPAC started road shows in 2011 with its first Regional CPAC in Orlando, Florida. Since then ACU has hosted regional CPACs in Chicago, Denver, St. Louis, San Diego, and now DC/MD. Some of the cities are more 2A friendly than others (clearly), but CPAC is about much more than just 2A. I guess if one doesn't like the anti-gun policies of the host city, one should decline to attend, or, just attend disarmed. But I agree with others that as long as armed guards are present, I wouldn't be uncomfortable attending disarmed. And due to the presence of Secret Service protected politicians, I see this as quite reasonable.
 
#23 ·
No its not but i can give you an example of what is.
During the stink over gay marriage licence in ky a county clerk was jailed.
There was a gigantic crowd here for a few days of folks angry that she was jailed and a few from Rainbow group.
There were ALOT of openly armed people, including myself. At the jail about every 10th person was openly armed.
No attempts made to disarm nor restrict movement of any armed person were made. This is Ky after all.
Senator Cruz came, walked THRU the crowd talked to folks armed and unarmed, went into the jail and back out into the crowd again.
He was not afraid to be around armed citizens nor tried to seperate himself from them.


Im not pushing Cruz in this thread. But using him as an example of how our elected reps should behave.
 
#30 ·
Did I ever tell you about Sergeant Juhasz, who I met at Fort Bragg? He started WWII in the Hungarian army, was captured by and joined the German army, was captured by and subsequently joined the Red army, and then migrated to the US after the war and retired from the United States army.
 
#27 ·
Don't have a problem with it. I would prefer that they allow vetted people to carry without restriction and by vetted I mean identified as they enter the facility. If that is not possible then I have no problem with metal detectors and banning weapons for everyone other than those charged with protecting attendees. I don't think we should expect our elected officials and those assigned to protect them to face people who have made direct or indirect threats against them into a venue carrying weapons.

Participating in strictly political local events, editorials and forums I have been a victim of threatening emails, postal mail and phone calls. I would not want to be in a building with these people, knowing they had made these threats, if they were armed. Of course they are always anonymous threats and that is the reason our officials have armed security assigned to protect them and for those people an un-vetted large crowd in a closed room with weapons exponentially increases the difficulty of their mission. I have no problem here if they have armed security in the venue.
 
#28 ·
Part of the affront to the Constitution and the rule of law is that these would-be staffers and hirelings insulate themselves from the people. In a very real sense, they're no longer amongst the people. If they screw over the little guy, there are some very real incentives to such folks to cease doing so. Not least of which is that they can't show their faces amongst those who hired them. As it should be, IMO. Else "they" remain "they" who cannot be approached, cannot be questioned, don't feel they owe the citizens much beyond a backhanded thank-you for the hiring.

Dangerous, this "insulated" road we're on, allowing our hirelings to be truly separated from the people.
 
#34 ·
Folks when ever there is a presidential candidate or somebody being protected by the USSS, IIRC it temporarily becomes federal property and guns are a NO GO. I highly doubt this is a GOP decision, but rather a USSS decision.

When Bush 2 came to VMI they inspected all our M14's for firing pins, they did find my SIG P220 which was suppose to be in the armory but wasn't, one agent threatened to confiscate it but then let me secure it in the armory. The USSS basically does what they want, they will basically say "fight us in court" but we are taking this or we are banning this. Almost nothing a average Joe can do.
 
#46 ·
Yes, it is a case of "Might makes Right" which does not make it right or necessarily legal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ghost1958
#39 ·
I think if you are afraid of guns then you really aren't that conservative at all.
Exactly. Conserving use of the rule of law (via the statutes) for when an individual earns individual due process of law for his/her specific actions, and withholding such punitive prior restraints upon everyone out of fear such people might exist. What a concept.

Liberty. We should try it. It's not such a hateful thing as some might imagine.
 
#38 ·
Folks when ever there is a presidential candidate or somebody being protected by the USSS, IIRC it temporarily becomes federal property and guns are a NO GO. I highly doubt this is a GOP decision, but rather a USSS decision.

When Bush 2 came to VMI they inspected all our M14's for firing pins, they did find my SIG P220 which was suppose to be in the armory but wasn't, one agent threatened to confiscate it but then let me secure it in the armory. The USSS basically does what they want, they will basically say "fight us in court" but we are taking this or we are banning this. Almost nothing a average Joe can do.
When the KING is present, the rules change.
 
#48 ·
This is a good article about candidates for president getting USSS protection, how they qualify, when they get it, and why some have it when others don't.

Secret Service Protection - For Presidential Candidates

Just because Cruz didn't have protection at the Kim Davis protest doesn't mean he doesn't have it now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stoveman and AzQkr
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top