E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
New York Rep. Peter King, chairman of House Homeland Security Committee, will introduce a bill to ban carrying a gun within 1,000 feet of a member of Congress and federal judges. The measure will also apply to carrying weapons near the president or vice president.
King announced the measure at a press conference today with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who heads a gun control group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns and who is backing the bill. King's move may indicate there may be gaining momentum for some sort of gun-control measures in the wake of the Tucson shooting.
King's spokesman was unable to immediately say whether the congressman, who has been generally supportive of gun control measures, would back a separate bill being pushed by New York Democrat Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and New Jersey Democrat Sen. Frank Lautenberg to ban the kind of high capacity magazines that alleged Tucson shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, used during Saturday's attack.
Here is part of King's statement:
“Congressman Peter King today also announced that he will introduce legislation that will make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within 1,000 feet of the President, Vice President, Members of Congress or judges of the Federal Judiciary. In the United States, it is illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. Passing a similar law for government officials would give federal, state, and local law enforcement a better chance to intercept would-be shooters before they pull the trigger.”
King is a moderate Republican from a state with some of the toughest gun laws in the nation. He has often worked with Bloomberg on gun issues. It remains to be seen whether any of his fellow Republicans would sign on to such a bill. Remember, the new GOP-led House is composed of many members that have strong pro-gun ratings from the National Rifle Association.
Leave a Comment:
Thank you Rep Peter King, thank you Mayor Bloomberg, thank you Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and Sen. Frank Lautenberg. These people are what I call true national leaders.
Well, I commend the adult sentiment, and applaud the Congressman, but what about the rest of us who aren't judges or in Congress? And you know this isn't going to be taken lying down by Arizona, which allows guns, concealed or out in the open, EVEN in their capitol.
Why weren't they leading this effort BEFORE the shooting in AZ?
They are not LEADERS! They are opportunists and reactionary!
Progressive is the new regressive.
Uh oh... this guy just made the RINO list. Is he going to have crosshairs on his district too?
No, but you can bet nobody will listen to You, anymore, since you showed your ignorance on National News!
Peter King's a former supporter of the Irish Republican Army terrorists. He doesn't care about American citizens getting shot, he just cares about politicians getting shot.
Also, how can anybody who owns a gun obey this ridiculous law? Do you know where all government officials are at all times. so you can stay 1000 feet away from them? Maybe we need an iPhone app to tell us, so we can avoid them, which is not a bad thing to do even if you don't own a gun!
Great. Another law that's unenforceable until the shooter whips out his weapon. At which point it's too late for this retarded law to do any good. Do you really think you're going to prevent homicidal maniacs from doing what they do with this law?
What a @!$%#ing joke.
Knee jerk reaction, albeit atypical of a "conservative", to a problem which is much more complex than can be solved by legislation that in the end is unenforceable without frisking everyone in the general public within 1,000 feet of a member of congress or the judiciary. The logistics of such a task alone would preclude its enforcement.
That isn't the point. This is another law that can be used against citizens to put them into the legal system so that you can have your rights taken away. As you said, how do you know you are within 1000 feet of someone? The police don't care, they will just arrest you and say you were, if you are doing something they don't like.
Exactly what "Regressives" are after. Clinton and Pelosi Both want regressive politics at all levels to become the next "Stalinists".
What utter bilge; everyone that dislikes guns is going to use this atrocity to further their anti-gun agenda. It's sickening to watch. And if we're going to blame the political rhetoric, then why wasn't anyone outraged when other members on the opposite side of the aisle chose to call their opponents "enemies", or used language such as "get in their faces" when referring to talking with their political opposites. And why wasn't anyone livid over the movie "death of a President", which is about the assassination of George W. Bush?
I agree with you all anti-gunners will jump all over this, to add more LAWS and more GUN CONTROLL why not try to enforce all the laws on "BOOKS".
They forget one thing its people that kill, it could be KNIFE, BAT, CLUB, CAR, BOAT, HANDS, ETC., "GUNS DO NOT KILL" THEY PROTECT YOU ME AND EVERYONE ELSE.
This person had a MEDICAL PROBLEM but it was never reported and I ask you how can you make anyone go to a doctor, if he had and was found unstable he would have been listed in the "NICS" computer he would have been able to purchase a gun.
KEEP IN MIND ALL THE LAWS IN THE WORLD WILL NOT KEEP A PERSON WANTING TO KILL SOMEONE FROM KILLING, MORE GUN LAWS ARE NOT THE ANSWER.
I can carry my gun within 1000 feet of a school here in Virginia, as I have a concealed carry permit. So long as I'm in my car. Charlie hit it on the head.
In Texas, as a CHL (Concealed Handgun License) holder, I can carry all the way up to the school DOOR! Step inside the door, and it's a felony, but I can LEGALLY carry up to the door!
I never knew guns when they are made to have a brain and can kill someone when they want to......if this is the case I am sure the left can come up with some money pit to train the guns in a union school that will feed them heathly food and train them to be much better thinking guns..... "It takes a village" of guns to make this right!
I have an incredible amount of empathy for all of the victims involved in the Tuscon, Arizona shootings. My prayers go out to all whom are suffering and to those whom have lost their life.
Please understand that the few (persons whom use guns to commit violence) people that make use of these weapons do not represent the whole of us whom whole heartedly believe in our 2nd amendments rights.
For the millions of licensed owners of pistols, rifles, Bows & arrows. This is as much a part of us as a Monday night football game or watching your children par take in an event they enjoy. We are responsible citizens, we have been mandated by law to know the law & we have each had background checks ran on us of course that depends on which state you are in. Michigan takes its gun laws seriously and vigerously background checks, fingerprints & require a minumum of 8 hours of gun safety instruction, shooting, handling a loaded weapon, cleaning a loaded weapon & also has an attorney specializing in gun laws attend the 8 hour course to review all of the gun laws prior to being able to obtain your concealed weapons permit.
I don't feel that outlawing this item or that item will solve any issue. It's like saying a professional football player can't wear those specially made receiving gloves because they may just make that winning catch and change the outcome of the game because they have a much stickier surface which lends to an advantage for them.
I believe in God & country. But removing our freedoms one law at a time leads to tyranny and non of want that. This is why we live in america.
God Bless and prayers to all whom this devastating event has brought soorow to.
I don't believe these people, one idiot goes on a rampage and they blame exeryone but the nut case that committed the crime. I suppose he's a victim now. Stupid stupid. Maybe if people in the crowd had been armed and trained they might have stopped the guy b4 he killed. But then the media would have said they were wrong for killing him.
ironic on how people think and want everything to be politically correct, but yet refuse to support the current laws and think that adding new ones will work.
Unapologetic-1604804
Same old rightwing rhetoric: there's nothing we can do, it's futile to make the effort, nothing will work let's just give up, why fight the darkness, it's all bad, "I'd turn back if I were you."
Yeah, well, they said we couldn't elect a guy with a name like Barack Obama, and we DID! That's why I'm a Democrat, we fight for what is right and good.
Well Amy, I could respond with ,"Same old leftwing nonsense. 'Let's just come up with another meaningless law which makes everyone feel good, and oh, by the way, costs millions to actually enforce. After all John Q. Public's pockets are deep.'" Thank God for the Tea Party movement who have actually succeeded in beginning the arduous task of undoing the Socialist agenda of your champion.
" Thank God for the Tea Party movement who have actually succeeded in beginning the arduous task of undoing the Socialist agenda of your champion."
Speaking of everely damaged brains....
Yup, another law. That's always the answer.
So lets play this out a bit. You live in a conceal/carry state. You've got your gun, and you're going to the store to buy some milk. You turn the corner, and lo-and-behold right there in your face, not more than 2 feet away, is your Congress-critter, smiling like the Cheshire Cat, pumping everyones hand, and saying Vote For Me! You of course have now committed a crime, are tackled and cuffed by security, and it's 3-5 for you in the Fed pen.
And have a nice day.
If any issue warrants a law, I would say it's the sale of guns, which can currently be purchased by anyone with $500.00, that can kill 30 people it a few seconds. But I quess that's me, so "silly." What are a few dead children, senior citizens, federal judges, students in universities, co-workers, and colleagues versus the freedom to own your own weapon of mass destruction? C'mon, its no contest, we love our gun violence!
OK, Amy, let's outlaw all CARS! You said that a gun can kill 30 people in a few seconds (which it CAN'T, because a gun is an inanimate object, but for the sake of YOUR argument, I'll continue...), well someone behind the wheel of a car can overrun DOZENS of people in an INSTANT! Yeah, that's it, let's outlaw all cars!!!
Amy, I forgot 2 small points: 1. There are ALREADY NUMEROUS laws on the books that deal with the sale of guns. 2. Criminals DON'T ABIDE BY the current laws. So what makes you think they would abide by NEW laws???
paintmixer, That was a lame attempt at an argument against gun control, was that right out of the NRA Handbook? Firearms need to be regulated. Hell in Arizona until the l980s you could buy a shotgun and take it home that day. The young man who shot all of those people wasn't a criminal until he brandish the weapon. We need better regulations on who can purchase a firearm so nuts like Jared don't end up with them.
John, Maybe we could make it a wee bit harder for nut cases to to get guns. What do you think?
No, it wasn't out of ANY book. Whether you agree or not, it's fact! In Texas, you can walk in and walk out the same day with ANY (legal) weapon, IF you pass the background check. It takes about 5 minutes after you fill out the 4473. If you have a CHL, there's no call, because you've ALREADY been checked out. Firearms are ALREADY regulated, it's just that criminals don't CARE!
Wakeup,
I'm betting Jared didn't buy his guns from a dealer. If he HAD, he wouldn't have passed the background check. What good is more regulation going to do???
Check it out he bought that gun legally.
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/09/jared-lee-loughner-details-on-gabrielle-giffords-alleged-shooter.html
I don't care what the news reported, he couldn't have bought it "legally", I know what the questions are on the form, (I've filled out several.) and if he responded to them truthfully, he could NOT have passed the screening.
I suggest you take the time to go to ANY dealer, and ask to see a Form 4473. Read it. THEN, tell me he bought it legally. And yes, lying on that form is a FEDERAL OFFENSE, NOW! So, he COULDN'T have bought it "legally."
JoAnnaSmith1
Yup, another law. That's always the answer.
So lets play this out a bit. You live in a conceal/carry state. You've got your gun, and you're going to the store to buy some milk. You turn the corner, and lo-and-behold right there in your face, not more than 2 feet away, is your Congress-critter, smiling like the Cheshire Cat, pumping everyones hand, and saying Vote For Me! You of course have now committed a crime, are tackled and cuffed by security, and it's 3-5 for you in the Fed pen.
Joanna you do know that this law is in effect when the president is at a event, why not expand this to congressmen and senators, as we see there lives are in just as much danger as the presidents, even more because there are more accessible than the president, they walk from building to building in washington, last year i was at the store and saw my congresswoman shopping with a aid and her security detail, 1 person, if any body wanted to kill her, that was the perfect time, or do you enjoy the thought that lawmakers could be murdered ?
wakeup - wakeup! it is 2011.
Paintmixer - loughner got a pass at the gunshop because he had no criminal record + the news agencies stated that Arizona does have lax gun control laws. Gotta have something for them pesky rattlers and lizards! BTW - I have no problem with gun ownership, but I have never felt the need to get one either.
Jeff - As joanna illustrated, how are you going to cover random occurrences? I wouldn't know how to recognize any judge in the state of Iowa nor 3 out of the 5 US house members in Iowa either. You can forget about the state legislature as well.
You can provide security, but that doesn't guarantee safety.
american-2051576
Jeff - As joanna illustrated, how are you going to cover random occurrences? I wouldn't know how to recognize any judge in the state of Iowa nor 3 out of the 5 US house members in Iowa either. You can forget about the state legislature as well.
You can provide security, but that doesn't guarantee safety.
some security is better than none as we saw saturday. I'm not talking about the state lawmakers, I'm taking about the federal lawmakers.
I agree King's proposal is unenforceable. BUT there are steps that we can take that are reasonable and will not infringe on gun owners rights. Even the very conservative US supreme Court says that the government can impose limits on gun ownership. Can we all agree that mentally ill people should not be able to buy guns? If the US military rejected Loughner as unstable can't local police also take steps to prevent him from getting a gun?
Also, how about limiting automatic weapons to ten bullets rather than thirty? That's what the law used to say til 2004. Gun owners can still hunt and do target practice without needing a 30 round automatic.
free speech is not absolute (no libel, no crying fire in a crowded theater). Gun ownership rights are not absolute. NRA members please let me know what restrictions on guns are reasonable that you would be willing to see for the safety of the community
Robert,
I agree that mentally ill people shouldn't have a gun. I also know that criminals don't abide by laws. If they DID, they wouldn't be criminals.
Next, there are NO automatic weapons allowed NOW, unless you're a class 3 license holder. There are SEMI-automatic weapons, which require a distinct trigger pull between every round fired.
And last, but certainly not least, it takes LESS THAN A SECOND to swap magazines. What difference would it make if his magazines held 3, or FIFTY rounds???
And as far as gun ownership rights not being absolute, PLEASE show me in the Constitution where it puts ANY restriction on owning a weapon. I've read it many times, and can't seem to find it. MAYBE, just MAYBE, it's in the same place that has the "separation of church and state" clause... ROTFLMAO!!!
You want a safe community? Google Kennesaw, Georgia!
No thanks. Didn't carrying a six gun go out with the closing of the western frontier?
Yep, most of us carry semis, now! LOL!!!
A few points:
Sam Kline's post is instructive and refreshing. I don't totally agree that banning any particular "item" won't help. For example, the very high volume magazines seem to increase the volume of risk more than any inconvenience to lawful sportsmen really justifies. But the most important thing about Sam's post is its civil tone, respectful regard for the views of others even when they disagree, and at the end his reminder that the travails of those directly involved should be at the forefront of our thoughts. He reminds us that we can have vigorous, productive debate without the nastiness and personal attacks. Thanks Sam.
This is great and all, but think of the hypocrisy. No guns around elected officials, but good luck to the rest of us. I live in Missouri where it's entirely legal to walk into a bar and have yourself a heavy night of drinking with your sidearm concealed. What society allows that? Whether or not it would have helped in the tragic Arizona shooting, it doesn't detract from the fact that it's WAY past time for reasonable gun control and enforcement in this country.
Does anyone including lawmakers think outlawing anyone from carrying a gun within a 1000 feet of a Congressman or Federal Judge is going to make a difference. Any person in the frame of mind like the lunatic that shot 20 people saturday in Arizona is not going to be playing by the rules period!
It is just another way to punish those who are doing the right thing, place more rules on them, but still allow the criminals to keep theirs.
The problem isn't the gun, the problem is the person behind the gun. When was the last time you saw a gun walk down the street and shoot someone. Does this mean that they should make a law that doesn't allow anyone with 1000 feet of me with a gun? Wouldn't that allow for more alone time?
One problem is that Congressional leaders think they are above the law, that they should have special protections. They are representatives of the majority, they need to live in the same neighborhoods that they represent. They probably should have to face the same dangers that individuals have to face day in and day out. Besides, where will they cut the budget to make sure they are safe, I would hate to spend even more taxpayer money on people that seemingly can't do their job correctly.
I listen to the same ole BS everyday - people making excuses for someone or something. There are no excuses for what happened in Phoenix. It never should have happened and it would not have happened had the leaders of the United States of America had been doing their job all along in dealing with the gun issue. Sure we have the right to "bear Arms", but it did not say we have the right to bear arsenals. And that is exactly what Mr Loughner had when he opened fire on a group of people doing everyday things. As a matter of fact he was trying to reload another magazine for another round of 31 shots. If he had not been stopped by a bystander how many more lives would have been in jeopardy.
There's an old addage: "If you want to kill a snake, cut it's head off". In the Phoenix case, there was a three-headed snake. Loughner, Glock, and Bullets. Without any one of these elements this tragedy would never have happened. If you take Loughner out of the equation, that leaves Glock and Bullets; still dangerous but without a shooter, harmless. If you take the bullets out of the equation, you have Loughner and gun. Still dangerous but not as dangerous as a bulletless gun. If you take the gun out of the equation, you have Loughner and bullets. Still dangerous but not as dangerous since you have a gun without bullets and a shooter.
So we go after the snake's head which in this case is the Glock and Bullets. Without these 2 elements this tragedy would not have happened. Loughner may have stilled tried to kill but it certainly would not be 20 people dead and wounded not to mention the lives of families and friends whose lives will be changed forever. All because a retailer sold a gun to a de-ranged man, and another retailer sold a box of bullets to a de-ranged man, and a de-ranged man put these to elements together and created death and havoc.
Solution: Cut off the snakes's head....
He probably could use a truck instead and not a gun, filled some barrels up with gasoline and ram the hell out of the crowd with the truck and kill himself, while the truck exploded.Well the three headed snake just got blown up with 100s of people injured by a craze who went 4 wheeling with his truck with barrels filled gasoline and blew himself up with the rest of the crowd..
Soultion... if i had my gun he would a died before the truck hit the crowd...
So what you are calling for is that every person in the US must go through a psych exam before they are allowed to purchase a gun. And we think the government is too big already.
Maybe someone should come up with a machine that tests whether or not someone is going to purchase a weapon to kill people with. That would sure help us out.
It's VERY DOUBTFUL that he bought any guns from a dealer. In Texas, they do a background check, unless you carry a CHL (Concealed Handgun License), in which case you have ALREADY been checked. He may have bought the bullets from a dealer (or even Wal-Mart), but I'd bet he did NOT buy the gun from a dealer.
Oh, and if someone in the crowd had been armed, they would have taken him out as soon as he fired his first shots!!
Google Kennesaw, Georgia!
Or more likely shoot another innocent bystander. No thanks.
Let me guess paintmixer you're from Kennesaw, Georgia?
Actually, I'm from Texas.
Kennesaw, GA passed a law that REQUIRED every head of household in the city to OWN A GUN. Their crime rate DISAPPEARED!!! If you were a criminal, would you break into a house where you KNOW they have a weapon???
Well actually it happens all the time.
Hmm. Let me see. People celebrate a municipal law that requires a mandate to buy a gun in a podunk town by ordinance, however many balk at a federal mandate to purchase health insurance or face a small fine.
Ironic.
I think the best way to handle this is to pass legislation to ban the high capacity magazines unless they are solely for our police officers. Why does the average joe need a clip with 30 bullets. By the way if you need this many shots as a hunter to nab your quarry you should take up another sport/past time.
Yellowdog Mark,
You've just found the linchpin to the whole ball of wax.
Welldone, sir. Welldone.
First off Yellowdog, Kennesaw is NOT a "podunk town", it's a suburb of Atlanta. Second, I wasn't CELEBRATING it, I'm merely stating the fact that having a weapon in the house almost ELIMINATED crime there.
Now, the Obamacare issue has NOTHING to do with the second amendment, but now that you brought it up, YES, we balk at the federal government taking over the health care industry, as we do when the take over ANY company. We are against our rights being systematically being taken away, one at a time. Unless you've had your head buried in the sand, you know that Obamacare has ALREADY forced MANY companies to REDUCE benefits to their employees, and in some cases, even reduce the NUMBER of employees. If Obamacare is so great, WHY has he already EXEMPTED over 1,000 companies and organizations from it, because they can't afford it. And an even BETTER question is...why did Congress exempt THEMSELVES from it???
Thankfully, Obamacare WILL be repealed. It may take awhile, but it will be. In the meantime, Congress can, for all practical purposes, kill it, by not FUNDING it...
Back to the gun issue. First, you need to know the difference between a "clip" and a "magazine". The gunman used NO clips, he had high capacity magazines. Some states ALREADY have a limit on the number of rounds you can have in a weapon. I'm proud to say that Texas is NOT one of them. Those laws that determine magazine count should be, and ARE NOW made at the STATE level. Anybody that's ever shot a Glock, or Beretta, or Sig or most ANY pistol, can change out magazines in less that a second. What difference does it make if it holds TWO or TWENTY???
It's too bad these legislators did not complain when people attending town hall meetings were carrying loaded guns. It seems hypocritical to have allowed these people to bring such weapons to public meetings, including events with our president and other officials, and now ask for gun control. I think it is wrong for anyone but law enforcement officers, etc. to carry a gun unless hunting or for sport at a designated area.
I realize guns do not kill people, people do. I also know that people who enjoy hunting and owing guns will complain. What about those of us who do not share their enthusiasm? Poor gun laws only enable unstable and uncaring people to buy and own guns - no one wants to take guns away from law abiding people like hunters and sport enthusiasts. We want laws to protect the rest of us, especially the innocent like the darling nine-year-old killed in this senseless act.
The second amendment was purposely created after the 1st to emphasize the freedom of speech and ensure the people of this country would aways have the physical ability to overthrow a tyrannous government just as the fore fathers had done to the British (remember they were the government pre 1776). The 2nd Amendment isnt about hunting and target shooting. Its not a privilidge. It's your constitutional right to bear arms. It doesnt give some whacko the right to buy a gun, quite the contrary, through the NICS (National Instant Check System) people disqualified by criminal or psychiatric ability do not get cleared to purchase. This applies in ALL states. Only criminals get their weapons illegally and would continue to do so with any new legislation congress would pass. Thats the definition of criminal isnt it ?. They certainly wouldnt go to ye old gun shoppe to purchase a weapon. Go after the gang bangers. All mayors of large cities, and their police forces, know who these criminals are but are too lazy to go after them or cite budgetary restrictions as the reasons they dont. I'm not anxious to see the law abiding become disadvantaged to teh criminal element because someone with poor understanding of checks and balances deems this the answer. If you dont want a gun dont buy one but dont restrict my right to do so.
Again...Google Kennesaw, Georgia!
paintmixer what's with the commerical for Kennesaw, Georgia? Enough already. I bet they have a population of less than 1,000. That wouldn't fly in Dallas, Houston, New York, Chicago or Los Angeles.
Actually, the population is about 30,000 and it's a close suburb of Atlanta. It's about at metropolitan as it gets!
Gee - because outlawing the guns near Congresscritters will actually STOP someone who is ... I don't know ... ALREADY considering the illegal activity of shooting at someone with it?
I can imagine: "Oh no, it is now a crime to bring a gun near a government official. Perhaps I will reconsider my insane plan to KILL THEM."
Do you you honestly think it will have ANY impact on their thought processes? Really?
Guns don't kill people. People do - and they can and do use all kinds of OTHER ways to do it, too.
So it sucks to be a corrupted politician..Now they got to look over there shoulder.
I am pleased to see that Representative King and the others are seriously looking at the gun problem; cheers to this group. We have seen gun restrictions become increasingly lax. AZ passed a law either this year or last that allows people to take guns into the AZ State Congress; NH is considering a similar law. There is talk of allowing guns in courtrooms. This is simply insane. We cannot prevent senseless violence when we make it even easier for it to occur.
Although I'm not a "gun-toting" member of the NRA, I have to respectfully disagree with any additional gun control measures like those suggested.
Do we TRULY believe that anyone who has already, in their mind, made the decision to shoot a congressman, judge, or any elected official, will refrain from doing so because "The Law" says they are not allowed to carry a gun within 1000 feet of said official?
Do we feel that the threat of imprisonment for the violation actually hinders the thought process of the person who has decided to kill?
Do we actually believe that another archaic law, passed and promoted by a government who has become a poster child for corruption and in-efficiency will be regulated with efficiency in order to prevent another tragedy like that which happened Sunday?
I most certainly do not!
Thank you, Mike. Common sense is NOT completely lost forever! LOL!!!
There is already laws that prevent people from carrying a weapon into any court room. Guns are currently prohibited in federal buildings in Washington D.C. so what good would this bill do. This is another political gimmick from politicians and nothing more. No new laws will prevent what happened in Arizona. Congressperson Giffords was holding a meeting outside when people were walking past, some not even knowing what was going on. Typical political BS, make a new law which means nothing except grand standing.
How stupid. It's not gun's that kill people, it is the people that kill people. If they want to do a gun bill, how about this for a change, enforce the current gun laws. What a concept!!!!
Isn't it already illegal to shoot and kill people??? So what will another law do to protect us from someone that is hell-bent to do harm?? Laws are only for law abiding citizens... HELLO!!!!
Another piece of "feel good" legislation which would accomplish ZERO in making anyone safer. Like most so-called "gun control" laws, it will only serve to infringe on the individual's constitutional right of self-defense, while subjecting law abiding citizens to possible prosecutions when no criminal intent was present. Isn't it already a capital offense to murder a federal official? If the intend is to protect them from harm, how does this deter someone intent on doing harm to them?
The 1,000 foot limit imposed by this rule would not have saved the people in AZ. Criminals bent on harming others hide their firearms. How can you know someone has a gun? Hope this does not include law-enforcement, as they need their guns to protect the rest of us. Seriously, Sheriff Dupnik needs to change his police protection policy. That would actually have helped everyone attending the "Congress on Your Corner." Require police presence and protection at open air meetings, or indoor Town Hall type meetings. One squad car, one uniformed officer would have made all the difference. The shooter was known to police since he had been arrested 5 times prior to this event. Dupnik knew how to pronounce his name, Lock-ner. We already have gun laws. This was a failure of local law enforcement taking a relaxed or "wait and see" approach to events like this. Please, let's protect the innocent public, who came there probably thinking there was some kind of security in place. Something more than the Safeway video cam. Where were the body guards? Basic, preventive, and customary security measures were not in place.
not sure of the answer to this: does the Instant check system apply to gun shows? If it applies to regular dealers, then it should also apply to gun show sellers.
On the instant check list should be felons, mentally ill, and anyone on the terrorist watch list. Any objections to these people NOT getting guns? The technology exists. And is apparently used in background checks on folks buying at stores.
"does the Instant check system apply to gun shows? If it applies to regular dealers, then it should also apply to gun show sellers." YES.
"On the instant check list should be felons, mentally ill, and anyone on the terrorist watch list. Any objections to these people NOT getting guns? The technology exists. And is apparently used in background checks on folks buying at stores" Already happning
I can only speak for Texas, but at all gun shows, the same measures are in force just like you walked into the dealer's shop. Form 4473 is filled out and if you don't have a CHL, the phone call is made. If you have a CHL, no call is needed.