By Dave Lindorff

Let me state from the get-go that I'm no opponent of gun ownership
(got my first rifle at the age of 12 and am still a crack shot). But
something weird is going on when you have guys wandering around a
political rally or protest site with pistols strapped to their thighs,
or semi-automatic assault rifles strapped brazenly to their backs, as
has been happening outside of venues where President Obama is speaking.

Before we get to the legal issues here, I just want to paint you a mental picture:

Take yourself back to the time when George W. Bush was president and
Dick Cheney was Vice President. Both men were barnstorming around the
country in those years, either ginning up support for their pointless
war in Iraq or campaigning for Republicans in Congressional races, or
for their own re-election. The response of police in charge of crowd
control at these events--always the same--was dependent upon who was
lining the streets. If there were people sporting signs that backed the
administration, they were left alone. If, however, it was someone
wearing something like an "Impeach Bush" T-shirt, or carrying a sign
saying "US Out of Iraq" or some other critical statement, he or she was
given a choice: move to a fenced in "Free Speech Zone" out of sight of
the presidential or vice-presidential entourage, or face arrest.

I investigated and wrote about what was happening
back then, and learned that the order to clear protesters away from
wherever the president or vice president would be was being made by the
Secret Service and the White House advance team. As I was told at the
time by Paul Wolf, a deputy police chief for Allegheny County, PA,
where Bush had come in 2003, the decision to pen in Bush critics at
that event originated with the Secret Service. "Generally, we don't put
protesters inside enclosures," Wolf said. "The only time I remember us
doing that was a Ku Klux Klan rally, where there was an opposing rally,
and we had to put up a fence to separate them."

Of the September, 2003 Bush event, he said, "What the Secret
Service does is they come in and do a site survey, and say, `Here's a
place where the people can be, and we'd like to have any protesters be
put in a place that is able to be secured.' Someone, say our police
chief, may have suggested the place, but the request to fence them in
comes from the Secret Service. They run the show."

Now I don't have to tell you that if those protesters who were
being moved away from a political rally or motorcade back then had been
visibly armed, much less armed with loaded assault rifles, they would
not have simply been herded into a "Free Speech" pen. They'd have been
arrested, probably tased into the bargain, their guns would have been
confiscated, and they might well have found themselves on a flight to
Guantanamo Bay.

What's different now?

For one thing, we aren't seeing the "Free Speech Zones" at Obama
events. Clearly the Secret Service is not being instructed by White
House operatives to have local police cart away protesters. That's a
good thing. The Bush/Cheney tactic against protest was a gross
violation of the First Amendment right of free speech and free
association. For another, it seems like the Secret Service is letting
local police make the decisions about who poses a threat to the
president--and in some states, like upstate New York, Colorado and
Arizona, for example--those local police seem perfectly comfortable
with having armed citizens in the crowds.

Let me just state for the record that this is sheer madness.

I've been to a lot of demonstrations in my life, and one thing that
has been pretty standard is that police have banned the use of wooden
sticks for holding up signs. The reason is obvious: They are afraid
that sticks might end up being used as weapons in any confrontation,
whether with them, or perhaps with angry opponents of whatever is being
protested. So protesters use cardboard tubes instead.

How is it that sticks or baseball bats can be banned at rallies and protests, but not guns?

I'm not talking here about the right to bear arms. People have the
right under the Constitution to own guns, and various states like
Virginia, for example, have passed laws even allowing them to be worn
into public places like restaurants. But police also have a duty to
protect the public, and the right to carry guns is not universal. They
cannot, for instance, be carried near schools in any jurisdiction I
know of. Does that violate the Constitution? Apparently not, according
to the Supreme Court.

Why aren't people allowed to carry guns near or in schools? You
tell me. Clearly it's because there have been some nasty incidents
involving people with guns blowing away kids at schools. It's not that
people haven't killed kids in other settings, but there's an emotional,
visceral response to seeing an armed person near a playground, so we
outlaw it. It would scare parents, scare kids and scare teachers, and
that's not an environment we want for our kids.

So what about political events? Don't we want political events to
be free from intimidation? The essence of a free society is the right
to go to a public political event and express one's support for or to
protest against some political figure or political policy. That can
involve having to confront people with an opposite perspective, which
can get tense and nasty, but the conflict is verbal, not physical, and
of course if it gets physical, the police intervene, as they
should--hopefully with even-handedness.

Guns at such events introduce a different factor. If police--and
the Secret Service--allow guns at political events, then members of the
public have to fear for their safety and their very lives. No amount of
police scrutiny can prevent a gun-holder, whether based upon a plan of
action or in the heat of the moment, from suddenly firing into a crowd.
That reality is certain to deter some people from speaking their mind,
and others from even showing up.

Furthermore, just as we've had plenty of gun violence at schools,
which has led to state and local bans everywhere on gun-toting near
schools, we've also had our share of political assassinations and
assassination attempts, usually by people who brought guns to political
events.

Should someone at some point make an assassination attempt against
the country's 44th president, I can see all the conspiracy theories
already, looking at how the Secret Service did nothing to keep guns
away from the president's appearances, and how local cops stood idly by
while armed gunmen milled around motorcades and outside the venues
where the president was speaking. Sure it would probably be someone who
came with a concealed weapon, not someone publicly carrying one, but
when you have people carrying them openly, it is bound to divert police
and Secret Service attention from the person or people in the crowd who
are up to something more sinister.

Am I crazy, or is this all just nuts? Does the Secret Service
really want another dead president on its hands? Do local police really
want to have people killed, or a president shot, on their watch?

We've established that this is the United States of Gun Owners, so
if you want a gun, go out and buy yourself one. Heck, buy a hundred if
you like. But nobody should be allowed to carry a gun at a political
event.

If we are going to keep our First Amendment, or what's left of it,
we have to make sure that freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are
not intimidated by wackos with weapons. If we can keep rallies free of
sticks and bats, we can and must keep them free of guns too.

___________________

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-area journalist. His latest book
is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006). His work is
available at www.thiscantbehappening.net