They detained him because of the possibility.

People carry because of the possibility.

Thats the comparison I was making.
I understand that its his "right", but common sense should have been used. He was trying to flex his rights in the wrong place.

 

if this had anything to do with anything but guns everyone would be backing this guy for government overstepping their bounds

but because it involves a gun everyone gets their panties in a bunch ... a gun is only dangerous in the hands of a dangerous person. and theres no reason to suspect someone is dangerous or has ill intentions simply because they posess a gun

so long as he was obeying all the laws where he was (which as far as we know he was) there was NO reason to arrest him, the only thing they should have done if they truly felt he was a threat was to escort him outside their so called perimeter area ... there was no justification for arresting him. especially not on the grounds that he had the gun where it was lawful for him to carry

 

listen gun owners. you guys have the right to bear arsm. its fine, but still there are "rules" and get harrassed.

we all have the freedom of speach, but i can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater. we all have rights but its also to protect others.

whoever said this guy goes to these things and was asking for this to happen i think hit it spot on.

 

What a slippery slope you play on when you think this way

If one person is detained illegaly and nothing is done then it sets the precedent in motion. Next time it may be for something more ambiguous to which nothing will be done and then when it finally happens to you it will be beyond repair.

 

He was well within his rights according to the state law set in place. I don't see how you can seriously argue this in this way, I mean the law is there and he followed it so where is the issue?

 

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.

 

IBtheystartputtingupnoweaponssignsoncampaignstops


wow, that was a long one h:

I didn't realize he wasn't actually at the rally, so whatever security threat he could've posed was pretty minimal. I think he was just testing the system for a reaction, and he got his answer.

 

Places Off-Limits* While Carrying in PA:

o
ANY Court facility
o
ANY Federal Building (Unless Authorized)
o
State Parks (except while in vehicle)
o
Detention Facilities (Adult & Juvenile)
o
Air Carrier Airport Terminals (secure areas only, common areas OK)
o
Cities of the first class unless you hold a valid LTCF
o Elementary and secondary schools. Federal law prohibits carry within 1000 feet of a school but carry license holders (any state) are excepted from the law. Pa law prohibits carry on school grounds but has exceptions that are explained within the statute: Title 18, §912

*The "Off Limits" list above also applies to concealed carry .

 

They must have had grounds for arrest though right (whether totally legitimate or not at all). I mean if he was "acting suspiciously", just in the opinion of a secret service agent or an officer, that's all there is to it.
There's certainly a lot of potential situations where you could get arrested for that very reason, and not feel it's fair (rightly so perhaps), but from a legal perspective you'd have no case.