The Huffington Post is reporting that a Republican Tea Party (GOTP) state legislator in New Hampshire posted a statement on Facebook questioning the attempted-assassination charges against the man who allegedly shot at the White House last week.
State Representative Jason Antosz wrote on his Facebook wall the day Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez was arrested by federal officials, that he did not believe the case rose to an assassination attempt, describing it as more of a “lucky shot.”
“An Idaho man accused of firing two shots at the White House exterior last week has been charged with attempting to assassinate President Barack Obama or his staff. Are Your Kidding me?” Antosz wrote on Facebook. “The Obama family according to sources was not even in Washington. It was a lucky shot via driving by on Pennsylvania Avenue. The president has the safety security in our history, it’s near impossible to kill a U.S. President with today’s secret service protocols and vehicle technologies.”
Ortega-Hernandez was arrested on 17 Nov 11 following an 11 Nov 11 incident in which he allegedly shot at the White House with an assault rifle. An Idaho resident, Ortega-Hernandez has been described by friends as having made threats against Obama in the past. In a tape auditioning for “The Oprah Winfrey Show,” Ortega-Hernandez ranted against the federal government.
Representative Antosz is, as expected, a Tea Party-backed Republican (GOTP) who was elected to the New Hampshire House of Representatives in 2010. He’s a member of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, and describes himself as “a Conservative Republican and advocate of Community Service, Pro-Life, and Patriotism” on his website.
According to the website, he’s also a member of the National Rifle Association and the Knights of Columbus and a former volunteer firefighter in Epping. He lists his platform positions including a smaller state government and state budget, protection of rivers, support of homeschooling, low or no taxes, transparency in government and support for the Second Amendment.
So, Antosz is your basic Tea Party, NRA, 2nd Amendment gun toting conservative who doesn’t understand that shooting an assault weapon at the White House, the residence of the President, is a federal crime. What is it with these people, are they really this obtuse? Well, yes, obviously they are this obtuse.
The Liberty Tree 
Janice
November 20, 2011 at 20:37
You make it sound like being a firefighter, a patriot, freedom loving American that believes in the 2nd amendment is a crime. That describes a lot of Americans from both sides. The idiot that fired at the white house…well do we know his true intent? Was he mad because the man he voted for failed him? Maybe pissed because “immigration reform” didn’t happen quick enough? Unemployment going thru the roof? Maybe he was just doing a random drive by. Please don’t inject speculation not very responsible journalism is it now? Just report the facts please and stop pushing your agenda. Democrats and Republicans and all those in between don’t respect the media for exactly this reason.
frogcycle
November 21, 2011 at 15:44
Actually, he didn’t “make it sound like” anything of the kind. He reported facts about the congressman’s background. You are the one speculating about the shooter’s intent. Reasonable people don’t respect reactionaries like you for exactly this reason.
Phil Bundy
November 20, 2011 at 22:22
You understand this is a commentary blog and not a news site?
Antosz is ignorant of the law and should keep his pie hole shut if he doesn’t know it; you shoot at the White House you get charged with attempting to kill the President, doesn’t matter what the motivation may be…
Andrew
November 28, 2012 at 16:52
Fact is this: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Second Amendment.
Where, in the constitution or Bill of Rights do you find limitations for the type of gun, ammo capacity, caliber, pistol grips, flash suppressors, barrel size, how many guns you can own, FBI fingerprinting, instant checks, laser and night sights, or who can own a gun?
You don’t. You make up things as you go along because you believe what you want to believe.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY OVER GUN POSSESSION OR USE.
The constitution limits federal authority over rights. Rights precede the constitution and are involatile. Government’s authority is to DEFEND, not infringe, rights.
WHAT PART OF “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
Phil Bundy
November 28, 2012 at 19:29
Well, unfortunately, you neglected to mention the reason why there’s a “right to bear arms”.
“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.”
Congress can, and does, have the “authority over gun possession or use” in all cases except those weapons needed for use in the “militia”; we no longer rely on militias to provide for “the security of a free state” therefore, we, as citizens, no longer need to possess weapons, and if you go for “original intent” argument then you’re entitled – as originally intended – to own a Brown Bess musket, bayonet, spare flints and 60 rounds of ammunition, I’m sure the Continental Army might have an opening.