The Presidents in town. Are his men packing heat?
Discussion
Petrus1983 said:
Obamas security detail are heavily armed, this is standard procedure and has been for quite a while. The Secret Service has ZERO faith in any foreign agency, as such (and at great expense) all is handled 'in house'.
To be fair, they don't seem to have any faith in any agency other than themselves, foreign or otherwise. Which is as it should be.
There'll be a lengthy and detailed process and procedure for any visiting head of state, whether POTUS or the Senegalese president.
Only scenario I can imagine issues are the huge events (like a State Funeral) where dozens of HoS are in attendance. When QE dies I can't imagine many Heads of State who wouldn't attend, even when they outwardly hate some of the other attendees...
4x4Tyke said:
The American secret service guys will not be armed while in this country, which would be illegal. Their UK counterparts will be.
Very wrong. They are armed. There will also be a number of plain clothes in the crowd who are armed. There will also be sniper teams throughout his route. They aren't using pea shooters either.
AJL308 said:
The legal situation is straight forward; you need to firearm certificate (or shotgun certificate) to possess firearms in the UK.
There are various exemptions such as for target Shooting at approved clubs, borrowing guns on private land or for firearms dealers, etc. There are lots of exemptions.
I don't see what exemption the President's S-Service guys could use for their possession though.
The same one our armed police use?There are various exemptions such as for target Shooting at approved clubs, borrowing guns on private land or for firearms dealers, etc. There are lots of exemptions.
I don't see what exemption the President's S-Service guys could use for their possession though.
Do people really believe the secret service are wandering around UK fully prepared with harsh words for any would be terrorists?
Of course they are armed to the teeth and there will be legislation somewhere that covers it.
And as for a 'shoot to kill' policy, there is no other way to fire a gun.
Of course they are armed to the teeth and there will be legislation somewhere that covers it.
And as for a 'shoot to kill' policy, there is no other way to fire a gun.
Jasandjules said:
Very wrong.
They are armed. There will also be a number of plain clothes in the crowd who are armed. There will also be sniper teams throughout his route. They aren't using pea shooters either.
A little O/T. I attended a rally for then Senator Obama in downtown Indianapolis in late October, just before the election. For a reason we never discovered we were plucked from the crowd of 35,000 (that had assembled with 1 days notice in a red state - Obama could sure pull a crowd) and put in the bleachers behind him. After he'd finished he came round and shook hands, we were a few feet from him. It was a beautiful crisp sunny Fall day and during the speech I looked up at the roof of a tall building about 100 yards away and straight into the scope of a secret service snipers rifle that was pointing straight at me! A slightly chilling moment.. They are armed. There will also be a number of plain clothes in the crowd who are armed. There will also be sniper teams throughout his route. They aren't using pea shooters either.
Obama won the state, the first democrat to do so since 1964.
Sway said:
Only scenario I can imagine issues are the huge events (like a State Funeral) where dozens of HoS are in attendance. When QE dies I can't imagine many Heads of State who wouldn't attend, even when they outwardly hate some of the other attendees...
Hadn't considered that event. I suppose they'll all come out of the woodwork for that. The logistics of it, possibly unprecedented? It's not like Kyoto or Bilderberg.SilverSpur said:
AJL308 said:
The legal situation is straight forward; you need to firearm certificate (or shotgun certificate) to possess firearms in the UK.
There are various exemptions such as for target Shooting at approved clubs, borrowing guns on private land or for firearms dealers, etc. There are lots of exemptions.
I don't see what exemption the President's S-Service guys could use for their possession though. It's more complicated as their gear is section 5 so you need Home Office authority as well as an FAC. Possibly visiting forces but they are civilian, as far as I'm aware.
They won't be relying on blagging some sort of diplomatic immunity though.
I would suspect they are simply above the law in this respect. ie the rules apply to us but not them. There are various exemptions such as for target Shooting at approved clubs, borrowing guns on private land or for firearms dealers, etc. There are lots of exemptions.
I don't see what exemption the President's S-Service guys could use for their possession though. It's more complicated as their gear is section 5 so you need Home Office authority as well as an FAC. Possibly visiting forces but they are civilian, as far as I'm aware.
They won't be relying on blagging some sort of diplomatic immunity though.
There will be something which allows them to do it legally but I don't know what it is.
Quite some time ago I was walking around Belgium packing an assault rifle, a GPMG, a rocket launcher and a motar. Not at the same time.
At no point was I arrested and it wasn't because I was so highly tooled up....
The legal terms are a visiting forces act. Presidential security fall under this classification, as do the US forces at the USAF bases in the UK.
However the US security teams have no powers of arrest or even to direct traffic. Thus the security operation will be commanded by UK police with the secret service being the last line of defence.
In the US it's the same deal for the UK diplomatic protection teams.
At no point was I arrested and it wasn't because I was so highly tooled up....
The legal terms are a visiting forces act. Presidential security fall under this classification, as do the US forces at the USAF bases in the UK.
However the US security teams have no powers of arrest or even to direct traffic. Thus the security operation will be commanded by UK police with the secret service being the last line of defence.
In the US it's the same deal for the UK diplomatic protection teams.
Edited by Talksteer on Tuesday 26th April 23:21
Vaud said:
There may be some obscure act that allows it. There may be an enabling act. Or they may be agreed protocols in place that are at the discretion of the Home Secretary (most likely)
The Firearms Act basically says you need a letter from the Home Secretary for section 5 firearms, so I suspect that's mostly what's involved.RobDickinson said:
Do people really believe the secret service are wandering around UK fully prepared with harsh words for any would be terrorists?
Of course they are armed to the teeth and there will be legislation somewhere that covers it.
And as for a 'shoot to kill' policy, there is no other way to fire a gun.
Agree on both points.Of course they are armed to the teeth and there will be legislation somewhere that covers it.
And as for a 'shoot to kill' policy, there is no other way to fire a gun.
His protection will be at least what he has in the US. It ridiculous to think that the US would agree to less protection while in a foreign country.
A gun is for killing. The first thing we were taught when shooting (in forces) is that when you pull a trigger you are aiming to kill. There is no Hollywood option.
Back in 1992 I joined Perot Systems.
The hiring manager was a Good Ole Boy called Jerry who was full of stories.
It just so happened that the same year Ross Perot was running for President and his bodyguards were told to hand in their Uzi's for some American manufacturer. The sole reason for this was more rounds per second. Basically these guys didn't care about Collateral Damage.
Wonder if "The Donald's" bodyguards have the same policy?
John
The hiring manager was a Good Ole Boy called Jerry who was full of stories.
It just so happened that the same year Ross Perot was running for President and his bodyguards were told to hand in their Uzi's for some American manufacturer. The sole reason for this was more rounds per second. Basically these guys didn't care about Collateral Damage.
Wonder if "The Donald's" bodyguards have the same policy?
John
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff