Originally Posted by
ShaolinLueb
like it or not, the constitution is all debatable. and the laws meant for 200+ years ago might not be meant for today. we aren't being invaded by Indians anymore.
as for being well within the laws of the state. HE WAS AT A PRESIDENTIAL RALLY!!!
dude, there are things you don't do, showing up to the presidential rally with a loaded weapon exposed is asking for you to be removed from the premises.
when someone like that secret service has to question him and let him go. if secret service doesn't want him there, then he isn't going there. well within his rights, but might threaten a future president. you never know.
we aren't a nation of cowboys anymore.
Unless there was a sign specifically stating no weapons outside of where the rally was being held then he was within his rights. regardless of what you may think the law on the books for that state say he can open carry if he follows the states laws on open carry unless otherwise noted. If he was doing that he was abiding by the laws set forth.
The constitution is arguable and when a logical argument is placed a law or amendment is added to it to fill that need....apparently that hole has not been a problem now has it or the state which made the laws has not closed it. So again until that time no matter how you argue it he was within his rights.