Is there a double standard for the Republican National Convention to deny guns right advocates the right to carry arms at their convention?

Read the last restriction noted, it is fairly standard for most CCW laws.

Forbidden Carry Zones
Any law enforcement station or detention facility
Courthouse or building housing a courtroom
Govt. building (dedicated restroom, shelter, car park okay)
Place of worship (unless specifically allowed)
Any airplane and most airport buildings
Institution for the care of mentally ill persons
School zone (drop off/pick up okay if you stay in car), college or university (handgun locked in car okay)
Child day-care center
Liquor facility (okay if not drinking and not posted “no guns”)
Wherever federal law prohibits the carrying of handguns
Any building or property posted as a “no gun zone”

SGT William Howell - I'm not assigning blame. The posted article did. It's no different than at least the last two RNC conventions which were also held in facilities which do not allow open carry. The point of the RNC in picking Cleveland was to focus on taking back Ohio in an election. Unfortunately anyone can find fault with any decision they make if they look hard enough. Were you planning on attending? With your weapon? Why?

Its just like baseball and hockey games. You cant carry in there and I don't blame them for that ruling. the second amendment to me is like the first. For example. Although I have freedom of speech if I yell FIRE in a crowded movie I will find my butt in jail and rightly so. well CCW is the same way. to me anyway. Its called common sense.

SP5 Christine Conley - The Quicken Loans Arena has the policy. The Secret Service might agree with it and advise against having additional weapons at the conventions (thus making their job a little easier), but they do not have the authority to tell anyone they can't bring weapons into a private venue.

thats fine and all, but with people who make the statement that our political leaders dont need to be guarded by people with firearms if the public can't have any firearm they want at any time. your statement defeats that commonly used statement.

LCpl Mark Lefler - I am not following your line of reasoning.

SFC (Join to see) - there is an argument out there that because obama wants tougher gun laws that he should not be protected by armed guards(secret service).

LCpl Mark Lefler - Roger. I've heard that but roll my eyes at it. The point I was making is that the RNC does not have a choice in the security at the convention because, rightly so, the SS is in charge of it. The SS should be in charge of the security because I cannot imagine the conspiracy theorists and media festivities that would ensue if a presidential candidate managed to get assassinated.

As someone who argues that we need more thoughtful gun laws and as someone who isnt a republican, this looks really hypocritical.

So are you saying the secret service who has made the no gun rule is republican?

I agree with your sentiment.

Got to call it like it is. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it is raining.

Sgt Gus Laskaris Let's add a little to that math. 100% of the shooters were criminals and committed a crime. If a person legally buys and legally carries he 100% not a criminal. If you stand up as a presidential candidate and say you are pro gun then you should have no problems standing next to a guy the may or may not be armed. I have not got problem with it. Why should they? They are being hypocritical.

Why would anybody accidentally get shot? 1st if they are whipping out a gun in the middle of a bunch of people then they are committing a crime. Second, nobody accidentally shoots somebody else. They are being negligent in some form or fashion. Again a crime.

Sgt Gus Laskaris I was a cop and a soldier for most my entire adult life and I didn't trust a bunch of them with guns at all, but still if you are going to stand up and say you are pro gun then you should be all about people being able to carry. You say "Protection". I say Restriction. Perception is reality.

SGT William Howell, as best I can recall, neither Hinkley (sp?) nor Oswald was a criminal before they shot a president. I don't recall if the folks who took shots at Ford were convicted of anything prior to their botched assassination attempts. (As an aside, I think the kid who T-boned the Presidential limousine made a nice chunk of change off the incident.)

Also, even though I am all for people having a right to carry tools for self-defense, there are many places where I think it makes sense to restrict folks from carrying -- e.g., bars, sporting events, and political events. I also think that property owners should have the right to set rules for guests on their property.

But you would think that all of those "good guys with guns" would make the convention that much safer... right?

MAJ Bryan Zeski - How do you know they are all good guys?

Cpl Mark McMiller - Isn't that the argument from the right-wing? That the "good guys with guns" make everyone around them safer? So, I'm sure that all of the actual legal firearm holders at the convention would be more than capable of handling any of the bad guys. That's one of the key arguments that the pro-gun movement uses on a regular basis - more guns in the hands of legal gun owners makes everyone safer. The Republican Convention is a great place for them to demonstrate how accurate that statement is.

MAJ Bryan Zeski - No; the argument is that the more good guys with guns, the better chance of stopping bad guys from doing things they aren't supposed to be doing. The logic of the argument is infallible; it's just common sense. However, the logic correctly assumes that the police are not going to be at the scene of every crime at a moment's notice. If each one of us had an armed bodyguard that was with us around the clock, we would not need personal firearms for protection. There will be armed secret service agents and other law enforcement professionals at the convention to protect the candidates and the participants.