I sit corrected.
Just for the record, local concealed-carry ordinances almost always have restrictions. For example, here in our county of Montana, if you have a permit to carry, you’re still not allowed to take a firearm (concealed or otherwise) into a Federal building, bank, school, or anyplace that sells alcoholic beverages.
Yes, but that’s for civilian carry. Those restrictions wouldn’t apply to, say, a cop carrying there while on duty. Which brings us back to the OP:
Does the Presidents position as Commander in Chief, or the nations top law officer give him the status to pack a piece.
That would be Senator Diane Feinstein. NOTE: The link is to a pro-gun site.
I don’t see why it wouldn’t. He’s not just vaguely “in law enforcement,” he is also the high boss of the Army, the FBI, and other institutions that are exempt from local carry laws. While he may not have an FBI title he definitely has a military title.
Why limit this to the POTUS? I would argue that anyone has the right to carry a concealed weapon, or anything else, in any part of the United States, if authorized by federal law and/or policy. If the locals don’t like it, too bad. State laws regulating the possession and carrying of weapons are irrelevant. The Attorney General could call me up today and say “Hey, you’re a cool dude. How would you like to be deputized as a U.S. Marshal and get a free Glock?”. If the state or county police tried to hassle me, they would get laughed out of court.
Let’s look at local government as a paradigm. The police officers are armed. They answer to a chief of police, who is also armed has powers of arrest, though he may not ever engage in the routine duties the patrolmen do. The chief, in turn, answers to a mayor and/or council. That, in effect, makes the mayor the head of the police department. It does not make him a police officer. He doesn’t have any legal basis for ccw based simply on his status as mayor, though he may elect to get a permit like any other citizen.
Thus, although POTUS may boss the FBI, CIA, Army, Navy, etc. around, he isn’t an FBI Agent, a CIA operative, a soldier, or a sailor.
Yes, but you cannot compare any mayor, even the mayor of New York, to the President of the United States. If you think of the United States as a large organization of which the government branches are a part, you would see POTUS at the top of an extremely large apex. Besides the numerous titles he has as Head of State, Commander in Chief ect, he is the supreme representative of the United States to the world. The significance of POTUS is that he is the one person who everyone thinks of when they think of the United States. Given all that, what authority would be able to say, “Sir, you are not permitted to carry any weapon on your person!”
But if he wanted to define himself as such, and the FBI/CIA/Army/Navy was willing to play along, could Congress or any other governmental authority object? They might say that if the Prez wants to carry using being head of the the military as a justification, he then becomes subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as per 802.2.a.1, for example.
Fact is, until a President whips out his piece to defend himself during an assassination attempt, the question may be forever untested.