Emma Watson and bodyguard (courtesy eonline.com)

NOTE: This story has been updated.

Brown University is a “gun-free” zone. Unless you’re an active, sworn police officer you’re not allowed to carry a firearm on campus. Which isn’t a problem here, right? ‘Cause the above graduation day picture shows actress Emma Watson (alias Hermione Jean Weasley née Granger) on Brown’s quad with a cop. Only Providence PD and Brown both said the bodyguard isn’t one of theirs. In fact, the blue jean bodyguard is a retired New York Detective. And that makes her a cop who’s breaking the law . . .

RI doesn’t recognize any other state’s concealed carry permit. So there’s only two ways a New York cop can carry in RI. One, if she has a RI concealed weapons permit. Or two, under the terms of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (a.k.a., LEOSA).

Emma Watson's bodyguard (courtesy

As a retired NYPD dick, Emma’s bodyguard qualifies for LEOSA. BUT the Act specifically states that out-of-state police may only carry outside their jurisdiction concealed. Says so right here [via the NRA]:

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

Emphasis added. So even though RI has open carry for Ocean state weapons permit holders, a LEOSA cop doesn’t qualify.

What’s more, a LEOSA cop doesn’t get a free ride on the Gun Free School Zones Act, under which Brown University maintains its blanket ban on non-active law enforcement firearms of any kind. To get around that a LEOSA cop would have to have an RI permit AND get permission from the University.

As for the “meaning” of this law-breaking bodyguard action, downtrend.com sees it this way . . .

One of two things is going on here. Either Brown approved this armed presence and they don’t want to seem like hypocrites or they found out about it later and don’t want to take action against such a famous graduate. Either way, this is elitism at its finest. There’s one rule for regular schlubs and another for rich and important people . . .

A famous person shows up with an armed guard, just for personal protection, and it’s like nothing ever happened. The gun-free zone only applies to those not fortunate enough to have been born into money or who have never starred in a string of blockbuster movies.

Maybe we should reframe the gun control debate as class warfare. It is the rich elites on the left that are trying to disarm the American people. All the while, they enjoy armed protection and privileges that most people can’t afford. The way regular people defend themselves is through gun ownership and the ability to carry their weapons.

One more thing: even if it was OK for Watson’s bodyguard to open carry it’s extremely ill-advised. Talk about shoot-me-first. Which goes to show even at Brown, you can’t fix stupid.

Recommended For You

132 Responses to Emma Watson’s Bodyguard Broke the Law

  1. Just because you are famous (any famous person and I am not targeting just EW) does not mean your life is more important than mine. Also, just because you are a police officer does not mean your life is more important than mine.

    • I see some kind of badge on the belt of the gunny. Do private security guards carry a badge? Like the dumb concealed carry badges you see in magazines.

    • A-rod,

      I imagine this was implied in your post but I will spell it out in case anyone doesn’t understand. Famous people and most law enforcement officers DO think their lives are more important than yours. The famous people think their lives are more important because they have way more money than you. And law enforcement think their lives are more important because they work for the Almighty Government.

    • In Canada, rich people’s money is more important than my life. I can’t get an Authorization To Carry, but Brinks guards can.

    • A-Rod, I said this so many times I’m sick of hearing it. I believe the core of the anti movement is not anti at all. They are gun grabbers who want to make guns illegal except for the rich, powerful and those who support them (police and bodyguards). If we all can carry firearms then no one is elite in that regard and this won’t do if you are an elitist.

    • Do these various weapons-on-campus prohibitions in the U.S. apply also to people like cash in transit guards? I don’t know about other Provinces, but up here in Alberta, CIT guards ALWAYS carry sidearms on campuses, when they come to refill ATMs. There was even an incident a while ago, where a G4S guard shot his colleagues:

      http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/travis-baumgartner-gets-40-years-without-parole-for-killing-co-workers-1.1706464

      Ironic and interesting, as well, that in Ms Watson’s home country, most of the police are unarmed. And I don’t like the idea of police moonlighting as security.

    • Or maybe she just doesnt want to get attacked by some nut job Harry Potter fanboy? Crazy people do attack celebrities from time to time. I agree that her bodyguard should have to follow the same laws as everybody else but I think she has a valid reason for wanting armed protection.

      • I think you might be missing the point. No one is claiming that EW does not have a valid reason to desire protection. What we’re saying is that our reasons are no less valid than EW’s are. A famous person’s life is valuable and worth protecting, and they do in fact face legitimate threats from time to time, but it is no different for the common man. EVERYONE’s life is valuable and worth protecting.

        The difference is that most of us can’t afford armed bodyguards or being “above the law”.

      • Look at gun violence statistics.

        How many “celebrities” are attacked and how often, versus how many Just Plain People are attacked and how often?

        And how about at Brown?

        http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Public_Safety/news/alerts.html

        This is the perfect example of the elitism/classism at work at universities and anywhere else upscale elites congregate to impart and inflict their philosophies. Celebrities are no more valuable per the Bill of Rights than any of the rest of us.

        My dream would be that dozens of Brown students would show up carrying openly as per RI law.

        http://www.armedcampuses.org/rhode-island/

    • Not necessarily.Sshe could be a LEO of another jurisdiction (the county of Watsonville, sworn to protect their most famous citizen?), or it could be a bogus badge like this: http://concealmentconcepts.com/badges.htm

      If Brown allows for LEO carry, and she’s a visiting LEO (active and sworn, just not from around there), then it might be fully legit.

      Tho, the odds of someone being on duty and out of town seem thin.

      Anyone know if Brown’s rule limits off-duty LEO carry?

      • Ever been to a college football game? OMG!!! A Louisiana State Trooper with a badge and a gun!!!…Next to Les Miles!!!…in Arkansas!!!…at a college campus!!! Why does Les Miles think hes better than us?

    • It’s her concealed carry badge, and she forgot to put her sash on.

      It’s all good. Nothing to see here, move along.

  2. Maybe we should reframe the gun control debate as class warfare.

    No reframing necessary. It is a matter of class — and culture.

    • Exactly, when hasn’t it been about class warfare? The rich have always had the means to protect themselves. No matter how strict the laws are, they can always get armed guards or hire police officers, something that’s out of reach of the vast majority of people.

      Some states were particularly blatant about it, only issuing a CCW if you can ‘prove’ you need it, like if you’re a business owner carrying large deposits regularly. So bags of money are worth a CCW, but everyone’s lives aren’t?

      • “…if you’re a business owner carrying large deposits regularly.” Uh, that doesn’t work in the Government Worker’s Bedroom, Maryland. I think you need to be killed before your need is urgent enough.

    • Interestingly, in Britain (Watson’s home country), what were incredibly liberal gun laws were amended, with licensing and registration, after a post-WW I red scare, and fears of a working class revolt. Both modern progressive gun control advocates and contemporary conservative anti-socialists alike would rather throw that bit of history down the Memory Hole:

      http://dvc.org.uk/dunblane/clayton_1.pdf

      http://mainelaw.maine.edu/academics/maine-law-review/pdf/Vol61_1/Vol61_me_l_rev_57.pdf

  3. Well, look at anti-2A billionaires Bloomberg, Steyer, Soros, Bezos, etc. Everything they say is from behind walls of mercs with automatic weapons. How is this not advocating gun control for the ‘little people’?

  4. Gun free zones mean if a criminal saw the sign, he wouldn’t commit a mass murder that day. Right?

    • No. It means a regular American with a clean record that has paid the government’s fees, passed its background check and obtained a CWP may be arrested and jailed for carrying a concealed firearm in a location within the United States because the American is no longer protected from that same government by the 2nd Amendment within that location.
      In essence, (GFZ sign) > (Constitution w/Bill of Rights)

  5. is ms Watson anti gun if not the hypocrisy rests solely on the university and not ms Granger. These elitist are not anti gun they are simply fascists that don’t want ‘lesser’ people to have any power. ivy league schools exist solely to brainwash students

  6. A couple of thoughts.

    One, the armed guard might very well have received written permission to carry where she did.

    Two ,using celebrities as a fulcrum for “class warfare” arguments to the uninitiated is a non-starter. Good luck convincing millions of Harry Potter fans that Emma Watson shouldn’t have armed protection.

    • That’s not what we’re trying to convince people of.

      Our point is not that she shouldn’t have it, but that we should.

    • yes, and we’re all supposed to go into a slobbering fit over her–until it’s Mila Kunis’ turn, or Angela Jolie, or Heidi Klum, or Serena Gomez, or–well, you get the idea. Guess I’m just gettin’ grumpy.

  7. Maybe we’re reading too much into this one? At least Ms Watson seems to realize that there are dangerous people in the world who can only be stopped by an armed goodguy, and that all the laws on paper and good karma in the world won’t save you. This is a first step to making a new pro-RKBA convert.

  8. LEOSA allows qualified police officers to carry concealed, nationwide. Unless she is in her jurisdiction or has a carry license that RI recognizes, I don’t think she is legal.

    • Under LEOSA, out-of-state law enforcement can only carry if they do so in accordance with the laws of the state they’re in.

      If open carry is permitted, an out-of-state cop can open carry. LEOSA does NOT give out-of-state cops a free pass on the Gun Free School Zones Act. Or state-mandated prohibitions.

      Another example, an out-of-state cop depending on LEOSA to carry in New York must abide by the magazine capacity laws of that state.

      FYI.

      • Concealed carry only:

        “(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).”

        http://le.nra.org/leosa.aspx

      • Rob,

        I would take a second look at the law. Under LEOSA, you do not have to carry with in the parameters of state law. It preempts all state laws regarding concealed carry, except for two instances

        1. If the state has a law that prohibits carry on a government installation building base or park.

        2. Private property where the owner of the property prohibits carry.

        The magazine issue has not been settled by the courts yet. However if your agency requires that you qualify with a 12 round magazine then there is no way they could prohibit a 12 round magazine because they would be preventing you from qualifying.

        LEOSA covers handguns, rifles, shotguns, short barrled rifles and short barrled shotguns, and only if they are concealed.

        The issue in this case is, whether or not she has an attorney general issued pistol permit. There are no school zone issues, that is all irrelevant.

        The only other issue is if the university would allow her to carry under their private property rules, they most likely do.

        Finally and less you have a RI carry license or you are covered under some other law like LEOSA, no property owner can give you permission to carry in violation of state law, which would be 11-47-8

        • Jared from BP I assume?? If so, Hello! Get a hold of me through Jim please, love to talk to you.

          As the law is written now, I believe State magazine are restrictions must be followed. You are right though, just as hollow point ammo in NJ was not addressed until the revision, the law is not proper. Our fearful leaders did not define the definition of a firearm to include ammo until the revision, and were not bright enough to realize that a magazine is also a part of firearms as well. I am surprised that it has not been revised yet again to fix that.

          Glad you brought up the issue of long guns and SBRs. Most don’t know that LEOSA applies to that as well.

          What about the issue of Gun Free School Zones Act? Does LEOSA trump that?

  9. While I know nothing about laws regarding open/concealed carry in R.I., there’s a possible different situation as well…

    In Illinois, which only just passed a hard-fought CCW law, there is a professional license through the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation. That’s the ‘tan card’/’Firearm Control Card’ that is referenced throughout many writings about their law. THAT law allowed people to carry on school property, regardless of other laws, so long as you were ‘in performance of your duty’. Professional courtesy rules were still expected, so when I would go onto a restricted area for the first time, I would make sure to inform whomever what in charge that I was, and would be, on their property.

    Is that what occurred here? Dunno, but if that’s a licensed bodyguard, it might be the case…

  10. “Talk about shoot-me-first.” Isn’t it the bodyguards job to take the bullet? So open carry sounds like a good idea.
    And a lot of us seem to like the idea of having open carry events, so couldn’t we use this as an example of good open carry?

  11. Ok I’m about to get flamed, but I’m OK with that. “Famous people” are more of a target. Crazy people tend to fixate more on them. So I do believe that they are at a slightly higher risk. And if you want to pay for private security, it is your money. I am not so arrogant that I feel entitled to tell someone else what they should and shouldn’t do with their money. I don’t like it when the FED taxes me and gives it to illegals. We just don’t know the whole story. Could she be under some sort of protection from the police because someone is after her? A crazy stalker/fan? Possibly. I’m not going to get all butt-hurt over a photo where no one has any info. Do I think it is fair for one “class” to have different rules? No. But that is reality. Always has been, always will. My bet is that she just did it. Since she was famous, everyone just assumed she had prior approval. Emma probably didn’t think about it at all. If ther is any fault, it is on the security guard. If she was truly a “professional” she would have done the leg work prior to the event.

    • Sorry but I haven’t seen famous people targeted by any of the recent mass shooters, just a whole lot of “every day ordinary people”. Famous people are not a bigger target than the public at large, that’s just unsubstantiated BS. I don’t think the qualm comes with the wealthy being able to afford their own armed guards, the problem is and always will be when the wealthy tell the rest of us we can’t be our own security detail because guns scare them or whatever other bullshit they espouse.

    • I don’t see a lot of famous people getting mugged, or raped, or beaten. They seem to mostly be … famous and good to go. Take for instance … “Bloomberg.” He has this army of armed guards with him at all times. Meanwhile, the common man in the street who can’t afford to have an armed guard is not allowed to be armed. Do you see it now? It’s not about “how the money is spent.” It is about what they can have that you can not. The only way for you to have it is to make huge sums of money and shake their hand. At which point in time, you can hire some armed guards or the “money club” can introduce you to the “right people” to set you up with a carry permit.

      BTW: “Do I think it is fair for one “class” to have different rules? No. But that is reality. Always has been, always will.”

      Way to stand up for what is right and not accept defeatism.

    • never said that mass shooters deliberately target famous people more (unless you are a Democrat from Arizona). I’m talking about your everyday garden variety nut-job. There are plenty of examples where stalkers go after famous people. There are plenty of examples of stalkers going after not-so-famous people as well. But the likelihood isn’t as high. It is part of the price of being famous. It only takes a few minutes on Google/Yahoo and you can find countless articles of celebrities getting stalked/harassed by strangers. That is why most of them have some sort of security.

      If you want private security, hire it. Just the same if you want to drive a BMW or a Corvette, buy one. Anyone should be able to do what they want with their own money. Is it a waste? A subjective opinion where the only answer that matters is from the person who is paying for it. There is a very good reason famous people, with hired security, rarely get mugged or assaulted. Bloomberg is the perfect example… how many people dislike him so much they would try to hurt him if they had a chance. He is still perfectly fine. Security works. Paid professionals who’s purpose is security will always be better than doing it yourself.

      Do I think it is hypocritical for a movie star to make a YouTube video against guns when they make their living off of action movies, of course. But then what do you expect from anyone who is a member of the Film Actors Guild.

      Do I think US Citizens should be allowed to carry their own firearm for their own, and family’s, safety? Of course. Do I carry? Yes, everywhere it is legal. Even though some people think it is stupid to do so. I paid for the gun, paid for my permit, attended professional courses no other person should tell me how to protect my family, as I don’t see it is my right to tell Emma Watson how to protect herself/family.

      It isn’t “defeatism” when I accept what “IS” and what I cannot change. Obama is our President. I accept that fact. Just because I accept that fact doesn’t mean I cant support everyone running against him and anyone who supports him with my time and money. I know many people are uneasy about guns, so I choose to carry concealed, and choose a firearm/clothing to keep it well concealed. That isn’t defeated, that is just smart.

      If you live in an oppressive state where you can’t get a permit to carry, move. It is your right. If you “choose” to stay, work within that system. OR, get involved and support a candidate for office that will change things to what you think they should be. Defeatism is accepting that Watts and Bloomberg can dictate we don’t have the 2nd Amendment. I choose to fight them.

    • Higher risk? Sure. I don’t care though. My life (to me at least) is worth more than a thousand Emma Watson’s will ever be. I want the ‘royalty’ of this country to follow the same laws I have to. I welcome their right to a bloody dancing troupe of heavily armed bodyguards, so long as I still have the right to pack a gun discreetly for my own protection.

  12. Funny thing. There is an article in the Huffington Post (very anti-gun pub) titled “Why Emma Watson’s Graduation Is Important for Teenagers”. I guess the HuffPo is OK with having a tooled up buddy walking with you on graduation day.

  13. “But while it may be OK for her to open carry it’s really, really stupid. Talk about shoot-me-first. Which goes to show even at Brown, you can’t fix stupid.”

    Is TTAG anti Open Carry?

  14. Yeah but she’s Emma Watson and she’s hot so let’s let this one slide. Plus I think it sends a message that carrying is good for protection. More people need to see this pic. It might help change minds.

    • Nope, with both antis and fence-sitters it tends to just prompt comments like “Well, she’s a celebrity, so of course she needs armed protection!” or the equally silly and pointless “Who cares? She’s hot!”

  15. Antis have made it clear that they can afford armed security details which by default makes them more important than you.

  16. As far as I can figure, a bodyguard open-carrying is going straight for bullying and intimidation.

    Nice.

  17. “Maybe we should reframe the gun control debate as class warfare.”

    Oh, make no mistake, civilian disarmament is absolutely about class warfare … which is why the term “civilian disarmament” may not be the best choice of words. Gun control is about trying to control anyone who is not in the elite club (or their hired stooges).

  18. Why even post this drivel? It’s not going to convince anyone to let you carry when you whine, “B-b-but Emma Watson’s bodyguard got to carry!”

    • bbbbut Cracker McGee gets to ride in the front of the bus!

      Save it, nobody is whining here or begging to be treated as equals. We are equal and we will call out BS as we see it.

  19. Hermione’s BG is a NYPD cop which makes matters worse.
    Whats she doing at Brown with her gun??
    There are a few articles about it already.
    Many laws were overlooked or just plain broken here.
    At least during the ceremony she was wearing a graduation robe.

  20. How about she’s open-carrying so everyone can see how important her boss is? “See, I’m with Emma Watson and she needs a bodyguard and can afford one too, and we don’t have to worry about any silly ol’ anti-gun laws like you do..” Hell, I’m still grumpy. Funny what gets under your skin sometimes.

  21. Unless Emma Watson is some sort of huge proponent of gun control – and I’m not aware she’s actually taken a position on that or any other American political topic – then I don’t see this as a big deal (beyond pointing out that ordinary citizens also deserve armed protection).

    I do recall a humorous motivational poster a few years back with the Harry/Ron/Hermione trio from the Harry Potter films, where somebody had photoshopped a sawed-off shotgun into Watson’s hands and captioned the pic with “You can play with your wands, boys, I’ve got this” or somesuch.

    😀

  22. What a stupid elitist, nit-picking article. SO WHAT?! I’m sure she DID receive permission prior….MOVE ON.. idiots.

    • stupid nitpicking and presumptuous perhaps but elitist? How exactly? The article in no way what so ever remotely suggested that this woman her guard or any one else for that matter were in any way below the authors own standing. Again an article that fundamentally extols the idea that we are ALL the same and equally deserving of the right to defend our selves is hardly elitist.

  23. Other side of the coin – the bodyguard carried a firearm on campus and nothing happened. No one was harmed or made unsafe. Another example for us to point at when the campus carry debate ones up again. I do agree though that celebrities are no more valuable than anyone else.

  24. Robert Farago,

    Using the link provided in the article itself, I wasn’t seeing any mention of leo’s being forced to open carry if a state only allows open carry. The article itself appears to be describing that LEOSA was constructed specifically to allow concealed carry for LEOs, regardless of whether the state allows concealed carry or not.

    There were exceptions listed, one of which mentioned the gun free school zone act but even then, it seems to be about concealed carry, not open.

    After reading through the wiki linked in the article, it appears that LEOSA would allow the bodyguard (assuming she’s a retired leo meeting all of the other requirements of LEOSA) to carry concealed in any state as long as she abides by the restrictions set forth in LEOSA, including the GFSZA. Because she’s open carrying in the photo, it doesn’t seem to even be a matter of LEOSA to begin with.

    The wiki appears to define LEOSA as a law that deals solely with concealed carry and sets forth restrictions to govern that concealed carry.

    Did I miss something in my read through of the wiki?

  25. WOW so much information here.

    First off the federal school zone law ONLY applies to K-12, not universities.

    Secondly, LEOSA does not cover open carry, so it’s irrelevant here.

    The only way she could open carry is with an AG permit (11-47-18). Being that she’s a retired cop AND a bodyguard, she would have no problem at all with obtaining an AG license.

    Brown’s rules don’t matter, they do not have the weight of law and they can’t do much to a non-student.

    I’m willing to bet that she does have an AG permit and I’m willing to bet that Brown waived whatever code of conduct rules they have for Emma and her guard.

  26. I do believe there are class issues here.

    She’s a filthy mudblood and the terrorist founder of the Society for the Protection of Elfish Welfare (S.P.E.W.). The Dark Lord certainly does not approve.

    You Muggles and your silly conspiracy theories. Who will save you when He returns? And don’t think a silly Muggle bodyguard with a gun will save you from the Death Eaters.

  27. I think every upstanding member of society should have the right to carry for defence. And no famous persons life is worth more than anyone else’s. But they are heaps more of a target than the rest of us, so I can’t see what the issue is here.

    • “I can’t see what the issue is here.”

      Celebs break the rules and get a free pass. Us ordinary schlubs break the rules and go to jail or obey and get shot. Since we’re not elite, we’re not allowed to defend ourselves, because of “gun-free”-itis.

      • The KEY POINT in this story is that she is a RETIRED POLICE OFFICER, Retired police can carry in all 50 states and States dare not start harassing other states Retired Police, this is why most bodyguards are police or were police.

        Also, I wonder if anyone understands the truth about guns for real, cause no matter the state an exemption to the law can be made by the Governor or District Attorney and Domestic Violence Sufferers or other people with legitimate death threats can be trained and issued a permit to carry even in States that normally don’t allow it, also it’s important to understand that every State in the US allows concealed carry, the issue is getting the permit signed off on. Funny enough any private university can allow exceptions to policy as well.

        Not to burst any bubbles, but you guys do know the Secret Service Literally Stand in the Hallways all day in dozens of schools and colleges as elected officials children go to school. I mean, only the really poor or ignorant schools don’t have full time armed guards, it’s been this way since 1970s and yes, Police can even be permanently staffed at the school and paid for by the school, to reduce costs colleges usually open PRIVATE LAW ENFORCEMENT FIRMS or Campus Police thru the simple process of following the State and Counties Sworn Officers Rules and Regulations, that’s right, some police are absolutely 100 percent privately funded and backed by state laws and carry out law enforcement duties that generate income by way if fines just like any other police department. The best part is, anyone could hypothetically do it, but would the local legislature sign off and would the Local Government back them.

        People are highly confused nowadays and forget police are not given additional rights, they just were favorites in by the powers that are in control, Sworn Officer just simply means someone that sent thru the Approved Process and contractually obligated themselves to enforce codes and regulations. These people are nothing different than everyone else, they just took the time to train and become law enforcement. Most people also forget that numerous police academies are 100 percent private and Accredited by the Law Enforcement of the State they are in, most states are very similar, but none of them are a fantasy island organization of supreme beings that have special powers, they are just people, the whole propaganda of additional rights for police and special powers comes from a dillusional mass hypnosis that forgets thousands of police officers are arrested every year for being criminals and thousands more are fired for breaking the oath, the oath simply put, is just a contract, nothing more, nothing less and even a Special Agent of the DEA shot himself in the leg. Completely tarnishing the omnipotent powers of the liberal gods lol.

        Every year thousands of police officers accidentally discharge their firearms and thousands of times police are investigated, it seems to me that Police are just People. They only have the Government convincing the mass herds of specialty powers and immunity so that you feel safe in there constructed reality of AVERAGE PEOPLE doing very AVERAGE tasks. Literally the only difference with citizens and police officers is that they get awards for doing the common sense things that citizens also do, just like the military, movie stars, journalists and the list goes on, undeserving praise for a common person to help convince you and them that they are special when in fact you can score too high on police exams in many states.

        Just think that thru, OVER QUALIFIED to be a police officer, that should shock your conscious to the core

  28. “One more thing: even if it was OK for Watson’s bodyguard to open carry it’s extremely ill-advised. Talk about shoot-me-first. Which goes to show even at Brown, you can’t fix stupid.”

    Eh, this part of the article seems a little spiteful.

    But the point remains, if we all hired bodyguards instead of carried, I guess the anti-gunners would have nothing to say? Is that the lesson to be learned here aside from the blatant class-ism and disregard for consistency in gun free zone “law”.

    Then it becomes an issue of what we consider “valid” firearms training that the bodyguard has vs. what the average citizen can obtain (not to mention the cost), etc.

    The only benefit of a bodyguard that I can tell is having an extra set of eyes scanning for threats and the fact they can be awake and protecting you while you are asleep. And technically, the bodyguard could be better trained or equipped without burdening yourself (the more training and gear, the more $$$).

    Benefits of law-abiding self-carry:

    1. You can bring your firearm to bear in less than 2 seconds in a critical incident vs. average police response times in tens of minutes.
    2. You have the element of surprise on your side if you CC.
    3. You learn to be responsible with firearms including all the ethical and moral implications of firearm ownership and carry. Increase in maturity and self-control.
    4. You benefit from learning useful skills like patience, self-awareness, awareness of environment and other people, marksmanship, medical skills, etc. Self-reliance is a great morale and confidence booster.
    5. No where near as expensive as hiring a professional bodyguard (or a few).

  29. Granted, this may speak more about my lack of familiarity with pop culture and who’s who of the rich and famous, than it does about any dangers facing this young lady, but I don’t know who Emma Watson is. Still irks me, though, that she’s apparently getting special treatment under the law.

  30. Laws have never meant anything to the elite and priveledged class. Laws are for the working class to keep them in line.

  31. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
    And to The Republic for which it stands,
    One Nation under God,
    Indivisible,
    With liberty and justice for all,
    As long as you can afford it,
    One coupon per customer,
    Offer has no cash value,
    No refunds or returns,
    Cannot be combined with other offers.

  32. Time to rewrite the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, ” But those with the means to hire armed minions shall have more rights than the working class man. Always do as we say not as we do!

  33. The “shoot nme first” complaint against OC is just dumb.
    Notice how it never happens? One case I can think of in recent history were a suicidal nut opened fire on some cops sitting at their lunches. The preponderance of evidence shows that if OC people are there, crooks and nuts will assume it’s not a safe place for them to operate.

    OC is the natural way to carry. Concealed carry is used because it’s easier than getting ninnies who’d scream and faint at the sight of a gun to not freak out. CC is for those too bashful to OC, too embarrassed to correct ninnies who call for the SWAT teams and the stupid cops who show up.
    Permits for CC have been a bad idea for gun-rights people to accept.
    Constitutional carry is the way it should be, and the most natural form of that is OC.

    So if OC means “shoot me first”, it’s better to beg and pay for a government permission slip to CC. This the point of those who look down their noses at OC?

  34. If you wanna tell the truth about guns you should mention that Rhode Island leaves the decision about guns on campus to the individual school. It does NOT make a blanket ruling. So the truth us that the school could allow carry without breaking the law. Even on a case by case level.
    http://www.armedcampuses.org/rhode-island/

    • Correct. Except the college could not authorize open carry if it is against state law without a private property exception.

      • There is no private property exception in Rhode Island. If you are not on property you own, or you are not at a shooting range or a gunsmith, you need a license to carry.

        You can’t do a sleepover at a friends and possess a handgun without a license to carry in RI.

  35. “If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous…) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions.” — Stefan Molyneux

  36. Rhode Island doesn’t recognize Concealed carry permits from ANY state nor MOST of it’s own citizens RIGHT to defend themselves. R.I. is a “MAY” issue state meaning it is more likely they WILL NOT give you a permit. As for Emma Watson I believe she is a citizen of The United Kingdom meaning she can’t carry in the U.S. and may need an armed bodyguard.

    • This is 100% untrue. Gun laws for non citizens have routinely been shot down by courts.

      Also, RI has no law for non-citizens, only 11-47-7 which prohibits illegal aliens from having guns, unless you have an AG pistol permit.

      Finally, federal law only requires non immigrants to have a hunting license or to meet one of the other exceptions, then they are under the same gun laws as everyone else.

      • I think what he is saying is based on the fact that sates are not required to honor another state’s carry permits. That is definitely true.

  37. Theres a lot here we do not know and jumping to conclusions does no one any good.

    First of all, she’s not any better than any of us. Better looking than most yes but her life is not more valuable. However, she does have a higher public profile, and lets face it, celebrities are often targeted by crazy fans. (Anyone remember that kid from the 80’s tv show that got killed by an obsessed fan?) So, if she had recently gotten some creepy love letters that the gist of them was “oh we so belong together but if i cannot have you then no one will” then maybe she figured that having a little protection at a high profile event like her graduation was warranted. After all, she earned it, why should she have to skip it due to some whackjob (if there is a whack job in this equation)

    Having said that, we also do not know if she had any type of permission or what not for her guard to have a weapon on campus. The article didnt seem sure about that or not. But, lets pretend she did in fact have permission, the only way that this would be eliteism or “different rules” situation would be if say, some other woman had been threatened by her ex bf and felt like her life was in danger. What would happen if she asked for permission to have an armed body guard at the ceremony? If she (the hypothetical woman here) was allowed to have a guard then its the same rules for everyone.

    Either way, lets blame the system and not Miss Watson. She didnt make the rules, and even if she got “special treatment” in this case then i say good for her. Its never a bad thing for someone to get away with breaking the rules because it sets a precedent. Much of our legal system is based on precedent. So if she did get away with something, “they” will have a hard time denying anyone else the same right to have protection.

    Many of you see this as a case of “one set of rules for ‘them’ and another for ‘us'”, but i see it as a win for us all around.

    • “but i see it as a win for us all around.”

      Then you see it wrong. Do you have stars in your eyes? SHE WAS BREAKING THE LAW!!!!!!

      Any one of us who doesn’t have special celeb dispensation who tried the same stunt would probably still be in jail today. THAT is what the problem is.

      • wow, reading comprehension fail all around.

        I’ll try and go slow so do keep up yes?

        Ok, first off, Emma was not the one with the gun, so she in fact did not break the law, as a matter of fact as a non-citizen she probably has no idea what the laws on guns vis a vis guns on campus etc. She, or her manager (most likely the manager) just contacted someone who advertised or got a referral to someone who does personal security. It is the responsibility of the guard to know the laws and follow them. So, Emma in all likelyhood did NOT break the law.

        Ok, moving on. (you are keeping up, yes?) It IS a win for us, because it sets a precedent. (i’ll wait while you look that word up). NOW, if say, your daughter or grand daughter w/e went to brown and had gotten a threat from say, an ex boyfriend and she didnt feel safe going to her own graduation ceremony and wanted to hire a guard for the day, “they” are going to have a tough time saying “no, you cant carry a gun to the ceremony” because someone else already has. Seriously, how are they going to deny another student who may feel she is in danger the right to hire protection for the day?

        If it was your daughter etc, and they tried to say no, you could say “but you let emma watson do it”. I would think that any dumbass right out of law school would have a pretty easy time getting this to hold up in court, due to its precedent.

        But all this hate and vitriol towards emma is just stupid. Why is everyone so pissed off that she was able to arrange for armed security on a college campus when we should be praising it as a win for those of us who support our 2nd amendment rights? (or did i miss something and youre in the gun grabber section?)

        Seriously, unless they change the laws or rules to prevent it happening again, what basis do you think they could have to deny you or a family member the same right to hire an armed guard for the day? and dont just say “oh she is famous” or “oh she is rich and rich famous people get away with anything they want” cuz thats a BS answer and you know it. Now that she’s done it, “they” have little ground on which to stand and deny any of us the same rights.

    • Looks to me like “the system’ is in fact getting the lion’s share of the “blame”–to the extent Ms Watson is taking heat it is basically indirect, in the sense of her taking advantage of a privilege that other folks do not have. And I don’t see the arbitrary handing out of such privilege (cf David Gregory) as a “win” for anyone but the government.

  38. “a LEOSA cop doesn’t get a free ride on the Gun Free School Zones Act, under which Brown University maintains its blanket ban on non-active law enforcement firearms of any kind”

    The federal “GF”SZ act doesn’t apply to universities, only grades 1-12. (K-12 on an indian reservation.) States may have different rules.

    • Since when does federal jurisdiction extend inside of Indian reservations? I thought they were sovereign, just like individual citizens are supposed to be.

  39. Wow… Some of you are going way off topic here… Also.. if Brown say it’s ok for this person to carry then cool, that’s it. If it is therir own policy they are free to enforce it where they choose to. I get that some of you find this frustrating but jeez calm down with the whole elitist argument

  40. One set of rules for the 1% and another set of rules for the 99%. No surprise here. We need a national concealed carry standard good in all 50 states.

    • ” We need a national concealed carry standard good in all 50 states.”

      There’s already a national standard: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

      What needs to be done is to get rid of the government criminals who violate that prohibition.

      • On this particular point rich, i agree with you 100%

        i mean, there are ‘some’ regulations i do not disagree with. I’m ok with violent felons not being allowed to carry guns, they’ve already demonstrated that they have trouble being part of our society. I’m ok with those convicted of domestic abuse not being able to own a gun. (oddly enough in some cases this is classified differently than say, an armed robbery so the need for two specific regs i’d say is warranted) I’m ok with denying gun ownership to those with specific mental illnesses if more than 1 doctor feels they are a threat to themselves or more importantly to others. But, i dont think that just because someone has taken anti-depressants in the past that they should automatically be deemed a danger and denied their rights etc.

        Those laws i’m ok with. there are a few others that dont bother me much but for the most part i think our law makers should have to prove that they understand what the words “shall” “not” “be” and “infringed” all mean before they’re allowed to even run for office. They should also be aware of what the word “treason” means.

        So, yeah, on this point i think youre absolutely correct.

  41. Ummm… whether or not there is reciprocity for concealed carry, she was open carrying. That is the law to be looked at in this case. There is a distinct difference.

  42. Not that it matters, but all retired police officers are allowed in all 50 states to carry their firearms, regardless of local laws, it’s the only national firearms reciprocity ever enacted by Congress and no state has ever been involved in prosecuting a Retired Police officer for carrying a firearm, and as the law goes, if the state allows open carry, then she didn’t break any law and retired law enforcement from certain areas get what’s called a Retired Police badge number and all, they even keep their Police Issued ID badge, it’s redone and stamped across with retired. This is the main reason retired police go to or open there own bodyguard. Security firm or likeness, since they don’t have to do anything but purchase insurance, that’s available thru the NRA backed insurance and it’s just how it goes.

    Not that liberals are gonna comprehend this, but POLICE OFFICERS ARE A ABOVE THE LAW KINDA ORGANIZATION, REGARDLESS OF YOUR OPINIONS, FACTS ARE FACTS

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *