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:
Amy - While my heart goes out to Congressperson Giffords and all the victims of this senseless tragedy, this proposed law (and other gun laws, for that matter) only affect those people who RESPECT the law in the first place - the law abiding citizen. Those CRIMINALS and TERRORISTS who wish to do harm to others, whether by guns, drugs, knives, bombs or cars will do so outside the confines of any laws passed. Why, you ask? Because these people don't RESPECT the law, so they work outside of it.
The criminals and terrorists intent on killing someone else will not go to the local gun store and fill out the 6-page, federally required background check form and wait for the government to approve them for the purchase of a gun. They will simply go find someone selling the "saturday night special" on the street. And when these criminals kill their intended victims with their black-market weapons, you can explain to the rest of us how these draconian gun laws helped "protect" us...
See, the only people that will suffer from these draconian gun laws are the very people the laws are trying to "protect". But when the government suceeds in taking away our second amendment rights, the rest will quickly follow, as the PEOPLE will have no way to defend themselves against the tyranny of the government.
More simply put - When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. The actions of a single person, no matter how heinous or egregious, should not affect the rights of the PEOPLE as a whole. The responsible person(s) should be tried and punished accordingly - the PEOPLE should not have to suffer the sins of one person. Just ask any person of Jewish decent that lived in 1942, or any Iraqi citizen that lived through the 1970s-1990s...
Remember, an armed population are CITIZENS, an unarmed population are SUBJECTS.
This is why I live in TEXAS...
In addressing the nature of egregious acts such as what we have recently witnessed, it is increasingly important to address the pathology from which such acts are born.
This is not a question of weaponry, but a consequence of failing to recognize the pervasive mental health issues so commonly attributed to 'evil'.
If lawmakers want to react effectively to this tragedy, then they need to empower the mental health community in an concerted effort to address the larger problem for what it is.
This would be the best front line of defense for the future health of this Democracy, and the people that effect it.
Better yet, 'empower' the executioner.
p
I figured the wet diaper politicans would come reeling out of the woodwork wanting more gun control. Question: Who do Americans need the most protection from? Answer: America's un-Constitutional law making, self-serving, cry babies, who know nothing about the real world. Get a life dip stick! America's biggest enemies sit on Capitol Hill. It will be a cold day in hell when I lie down to such inane laws. There are few men on Capitol Hill, just sissy boys mandating their cry baby rules in an attempt to control Americans. Such a mandate is totally flawed, I.E. what if you pass by a judge or some jack-wagon politican and you have no idea who the heck they are? What a bunch of asses!
Thank you for showing your ignorance and since we're aware of your leaning tendencies, we can vote you Out now.
Simple question...
Would this law have prevented the tragedy in Arizona?
Answer...
Of course not.
If a law that says "You may get the death penalty if you kill a government official" doesn't deter someone, a law saying you can't carry a gun near somebody isn't going to make a difference.
Good point, Dave.
What's your take on the alternatives to simply enacting a law?
Sometimes there isn't a good answer. The issue here is a severe mental illness. In the oooollllldddd days these kinds of individuals could be institutionalized. Now, case law prevents that solution in most cases.
Based on reporting at this point (which has been pretty poor), it sounds like this person has made death threats toward others. If either the police had followed up more aggressively OR had better tools to jail individuals who make threats than perhaps he would have not been able to carry out this attack.
Of course that option might have helped in this case but assassins don't always make death threats - Booth, Oswald and (possibly) Sirhan Sirhan are examples of this.
How about lets think out of the box for once.. All law abiding citizens are required to carry fire arms around judges and political officials. It is a well proven fact that criminals and people like the guy in Arizona do not attack people who can fight back. Problem solved by giving instead of taking away for once, but it will never happen.
The only gun law we need should be something like:
The death penalty for the legal owner of any firearm used in a crime....
Everyone keeps saying "criminals don't get their guns from dealers" which is true. Criminals get their guns from morons who don't keep their guns in a gun safe, guns just lying around people's houses and cars, in closets, on nightstands, in desk drawers.
These idiots who don't believe in gun safety, allow the criminals to enter their homes (and vehicles) and take guns that can be used in crimes, we get rid of these retards and then the criminals will find it harder to get their hands on illegal guns, therefore reducing gun crime.
If you allow criminals to steal your gun and commit crimes with it, you should not be allowed to ever purchase another gun (so as not to arm more criminals).
Punish the people that deserve punishment. Your kid takes a gun to school? Well that was your fault for not putting the gun away properly, you fail at gun safety and should pay the penalty.
'If you allow criminals to steal your gun and commit crimes' - do you have any idea how positively idiotic an assertion that is?
It's gonna be fun though when someone steals your identity & buys guns & commits crimes in your name. By your logic, you deserve to die.
That is a subterranean mentality response. That is making a criminal out of a victim! Only a liberal can make a suggestion that stupid!
The owner of the gun that was used is this crime is already facing 'death penalty' charges resulting from the attack. Which brings up two points:
lol is this really how they're going to protect themselves? You really think that someone who's out to KILL YOU gives a rat damn whether they're abiding the law?? All this bill will do is take the rights away from law-abiding citizens.. then pave the way for that list to grow (ie: children, pregnant women, the elderly, cops, handicapped people, gays, trannies, minorities with flags.. etc) until you literally can't carry a gun at all.. even in your own home with your pregnant wife!
Considering the rush of the Leftards to pin the nutbag on the Tea Party, it's a bit risible to assert 'conservatives' are prone to knee-jerk reactions.
Considering the rush of the Leftards to pin the nutbag on the Tea Party, it's a bit risible to assert 'conservatives' are prone to knee-jerk reactions.
Yep. I'm sure this law will certainly make someone think twice about murdering another human being because it's illegal to carry a gun within 1000 feet of them. After all, murder, attempted murder, and assassinations are completely legal, but THIS will be the law that makes them change their mind!
Blood in the streets, wild-west, protect the children, etc.
Americans typically over react to everything. Liquids on airliners, body scans etc. We are always closing the door after the incident. How about addressing the mentally ill?
That's the ticket. Time to get out the tape-measure. These stooges are embaressing.
Great, more useless and kneejerk reactions from our representatives. And once again they want to separate themselves from the people they serve by passing laws that apply to protecting them (not us). The guns aren't the problem, it was the person who used it. Even if this law had been in effect, it wouldn't have stopped the AZ shooting. NEWSFLASH: Criminals don't obey laws! Stop making the normal people suffer because of one crazy person.
The law already prohibits the mentally I'll from purchasing firearms. What we need is enforcement of laws already on the books, not more unenforced laws.The present administration has refused to enforce present laws, but, insists on try to enact new ones to the detrement of law abiding citizens. It's been made very clear that crooks don't obay the laws, that's why they are called criminals so one more, or a dozen more won't change anything for criminals, just those of us who value our gun rights. BTW, what if there was just one legally armed citizen at this meeting? bet things would have been different, but, it wouldn't change things for the gungrabbers!!
You all might as well accept the fact that guns are here to stay, period. If legislation prevents the law abiding citizen to haveing guns, the criminals will always have guns. If you've got the money someone has the time to sell you a gun, legally or illagally, fact, no matter where you live in this world. More laws are not the answer. Humanity and the change in humanity will be the only difference, but that will never happen. When the machine gun was invented , the thought that it was so horendous that it would be a deterent to war untill somebody got the nerve to pull the trigger. We now have nuclear weapons. If you believe that new laws will make a change then you live in LA-LA land. We are just barely civilized barbarians at this point. The world is just itching for another world war and GUNS will be used again to eliminate the so-called opponent. Maybe we have become civilized enough this next time that we will use those WPM's instead of guns, besides it gets more BANG for the buck. Just maybe then guns will no longer be used since there will be no one around to use them--- problem solved!!!!!
Jus my opinion!!!
It is unlawful to kill someone...period. It does not matter what the device used, killing is wrong! OK, what is needed is a little better oversight when someone is mentally ill. The budgets for mental illness are typically less than those for developmental issues so you get sloppy and poorly administered programs, lack or medicine and lack of research. Did you know that 3% of the population has serious mental issues? Calculate the numbers...about 9 million. I am personally struggling with the mental health system for my adult child right now. Look at the root cause...the gun and bullets were just the weapon used.
So,will representative King set a good example and announce no armed police will be allowed within 1000 ft ? That he and his staff and family wont have any guns ? And would those poor dead people be happier today if they had died from a suicide bomb instead of a gun ?
James Brady was shot in Washington D.C., where handguns were banned district-wide. How did that work out?
I respect Peter King greatly and listen to him. But please advise him that if his proposal is enacted, the guys who might save his life won't come to his meetings anymore.
I respect King and listen to him. But please advise him that if his proposal is enacted, the guys who might save his life won't be coming to his meetings anymore.
They would have better results if they would outlaw VIDEO Games in America.