(1) It shall be unlawful for any individual to possess a firearm within 2,430 meters (1.51 miles) of a place at which the President or the Vice-President of the United States of America is engaged in a public appearance. [See endnote 1].
(2) This prohibition extends from two hours prior to the scheduled public appearance to two hours after the scheduled public appearance.
(3) Exception: This does not include possession of a firearm by law enforcement officers on duty or on their way to or from lawful duty. Also, this does not apply to persons with a valid permit possessing a firearm on their private property. [See endnote 2].
(4) This law is enacted with the specific intent that courts and law enforcement officers apply the same as strict liability, and it shall not be a defense that the person carrying the gun has a concealed-carry permit, a valid owner's permit, no knowledge of the presidential or vice-presidential itinerary or that the weapon was unloaded, disassembled or stowed away.
(5) Whoever violates the Act shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the term of imprisonment imposed under this paragraph shall not run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment imposed under any other provision of law. [See endnote 3].
The legislative history of the bill or a preamble could include the following, which would explain the statute's necessity and attempt to ensure its constitutionality when reviewed by the court system:
"The United States of America has a long and sordid history of gun violence. The worst and most vile aspect of that history is the violence occasioned upon our national leaders. The Gun-Free Debate Zone Act of 2009 would allow citizens to employ their Second Amendment Rights in any of the remaining 3,794,058 square miles of our country in which the President or Vice-President is not holding a public engagement, as long as there are no other restrictions in that area. Moreover, the restriction is narrowly tailored to be temporary -- in effect only during the speaking engagements and for a reasonable time to allow the President or Vice-President to safely enter and leave the debate zone.
It is self-evident that the President and Vice-President of the United States have direct effect on the interstate commerce of this country. In fact, there is little doubt that there are two individuals or offices having a greater effect. Constitutional support for this law is found in the Interstate Commerce Clause, which applies to Congress, and to case law, which provides a broader view of interstate commerce."
The legislative history could include this information as well:
"At nationally publicized events dealing with health insurance reform in the Summer of 2009, the President of the United States spoke to Americans about his plan to change the currently dying system. During these events, individuals entered the debate zone armed with handguns and semi-automatic rifles. At that time, these acts were legal. Yet, there can be little doubt that a show of arms at a public debate is likely to "chill" speech. Moreover, our country has a sad history of violence by radical agents. Following these incidents in the Summer of 2009, the National Rifle Association stuck its head in the sand, issuing no statements about the wrongful, harmful and potentially deadly act of bringing semi-automatic rifles to heated public debates in which Presidents and children were present.
On the contrary, instead of leading the debate, the NRA led their website with stories like, "Lt. Col. Oliver North to sign books, speak at National Firearms Museum." Moreover, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, whose adherents appear to have staged these events for publicity purposes, also stuck his head in the sand, writing on his webpage only about free markets and bailouts. On Congressman Paul's personal website, there are only references to "fighting" and "defending" and "true defenders" and "political muscle" and "The Revolution."
With these supposedly sober organizations and individuals turning a blind eye to dangerous threats to the Presidency, free speech and interstate commerce, even though the above-described instances of armed political debate have received national attention, it is left to Congress to act."
If we needed further proof to act, what follows are images of other "Great Americans" and "Patriots" who engaged in political debate with guns. When will we learn?