Scot Van

No disrepect intended, Biker, but I think that might have been a wee bit jumpy. While it is certainly a time when our nation's elevated level of threat awareness dictates a concerted effort to be alert and aware and report suspicious activity, I think any agent that reads these posts will have little concern. Nobody has even implied any malicious intent regarding the choice to carry in the given situation. Though I feel it extremely unwise, the worst that has been said in this responsible, informed discussion is a contrary opinion to mine. I recognize the high code of ethics our forum members have, and feel that there are very few forums out there with such.

So when somebody here has proclaimed their intent to carry in our scenario, I cannot pretend to think he or she will do so with any intent of breaking the law or causing anyone harm simply because I disagree with their choice. Our forum mates just ain't built that way.

__________________
Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburger.
A. Hoffman

ibez

Why do you folks think the SS always wears dark glasses ? even at night

because the glasses are X-Ray vision glasses
see straight thru them clothing

;)

Scot Van

I thought it was for the same reason The Terminator wore those Gargoyles...won't do to have the public see the red lights and electronic pupils!

__________________
Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburger.
A. Hoffman

Jaystekan

When Clinton went to sarajevo, I was assigned to be his medical evacuation vehicle in his motorcade through the city. I remember going through the secret service brief about sniper placement, evac routes,all sorts of crap. We were even told, if we hit a person while driving, even a child, we don't stop, no matter what, lol. They said roll over the bump, hold on and just keep going. Anyway to the point. I was a specialist in the military, had a 9mm and an m-16, I was 4 vehicles behind the pres, and no one had any problems with us being armed. Kinda surprised me.

More to the point......I didn't think a candidate even got secret service protection until they at least won their parties nomination. When does a candidate qualify for a detail? There are what? * dem candidates, 5 republican candiates all trying to get nominated? That seems like it would stretch the secret service pretty thin. Just checked, no candidates except Hillary and Barak even have a Secret service detail. They don't get them assigned until they are officially their parties candidate unless the officiall ask for a detail. By law, the Secret Service is required to protect major presidential and vice presidential candidates, and their spouses, starting 120 days before the general election. Looks like anyone guarding a candidate this early on would be either private, local or an agency other than the secret service.

ibez

Theres' been instances
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/us...gewanted=print

cwblanco

What you say makes sense to an extent -- particularly in an environment where LEO's are lacking. My opinion is that is the why states have adopted CHL laws. On the other hand, Secret Service personnel are highly screened physically and psychologically. Many police departments do the same. However, even those states with stringent CHL permits do not come close to such screening. As you are aware, even the fruitiest of fruitcakes can get a driver's license, and many more people are killed in vehicle accidents.

packinnova

We need to get all this mess changed anyway. Why is it that we feel the need to spend gazzillions on ss details for congress critters or potential congress critters? Why are they so much more important than the folks they're supposed to represent? I say do away with the details all together and make them learn to take responsibility for their own safety like the rest of us. Perhaps then they wouldn't be so quick to try to strip us of our own inherent rights....

__________________
-The Mist (2007)

cphilip

Indeed! The very act of open discussion is enough to demonstrate good intent here. Someone needs to take off their own tin foil hat and get real. The very fact that this forum has always been dominated by reasonable people rather than "Kooks and Nuts" is why I would feel comfortable asking for and taking advice on this subject here.

__________________
www.cphilip.com

cphilip

Alright... then if we assume that there IS security, of any kind, then the majority here seem to recommend no carrying anyway. Early on in the thread it was USSS but then later it was pointed out that it really matters not so much as even if its not USSS doing it, then there still will be security in some form or fashion making carry a bad idea no matter what. Seems to me thats the consensus. And probably the best solution since you don't know how that security is laid out or how they are going to react to concealed carry. That's all assuming there is no law already baring it in the first place in your state. Is that the way most of you are reading this?

__________________
www.cphilip.com

BikerRN

I'm not going to bother to respond to some of you.

If you want to take it up in PM's feel free to do so.

I did make a phone call, because information is a vital tool. My previous post was a way of telling those that are talking about how things are done to keep quiet about it. I have never been or claimed to be concerned with any VIP's protection. It's not something I want to do, or care about.

No, I was not "jumpy" nor do I think that the OP is someone intent on harming a Presidential Canidate. I just think that too many people are posting too much info. "Loose lips sinks ships" is very appropriate here.

Biker

__________________
"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."