Judging by the information that’s currently available, there is virtually no gun-control law that could have stopped Jared Lee Loughner from killing six and wounding 14 on Saturday. He bought his gun legally, and he’d had no serious brushes with law enforcement or the nation’s mental-health infrastructure. The magazine he used had been covered by an earlier gun-control law, but that law banned only its manufacture and importation, not its ownership or use. Even the standard conservative line about guns — that allowing citizens to carry guns will prevent public shootings — didn’t pan out; Arizona has some of the most lenient gun laws in the nation, there is no evidence that the location of the shooting was a “gun-free zone,” and there was even a concealed-carry permit holder nearby.
Advertisement
That has not stopped the gun-control movement, of course. Its latest attempt to capitalize on this shooting is a proposal by Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) that would ban the carrying of a weapon “within 1,000 feet of the President, Vice President, Members of Congress or judges of the Federal Judiciary.”
It’s rather difficult to tell what this is supposed to accomplish. If someone intends to assassinate a public official, he’s already planning to break a few laws; there is absolutely no reason to believe that one more law — a law that will presumably mete out less punishment than do laws against murder — will affect his calculations. And given how easy it is to conceal a handgun until one’s target is in sight, there’s little hope that this law will help security or police officers disarm assassins before they commence shooting.
This isn’t mere conjecture. We have a lot of experience with “gun-free zones,” and the results aren’t promising. Until this recent tragedy, pro-gun bloggers and commentators had beennoting the alarming trend that most public shootings happened in these areas — which include schools, courthouses, and private businesses that don’t allow guns. If your intention is to commit murder, you can minimize your chances of being stopped by targeting an area where everyone else will be unarmed. The Giffords shooting was an exception, but the overall trend remains clear.
Further, there are numerous legal and practical problems with the proposed law. Recent Supreme Court decisions protect the right of the individual to own handguns, and most states allow citizens to carry them. Do these rights disappear if a public official frequently comes within 1,000 feet of you? The bill would prohibit only “knowingly” carrying within this distance, but what if I know a judge lives next door? Does the Constitution give the federal government the right to go to this length to protect federal employees?
This was a senseless tragedy, and it seems natural to assume that in a properly governed country, things like this wouldn’t happen. But the fact is that any policy will fail to prevent some acts of malice: Strict gun-control laws leave the innocent unable to protect themselves; liberal gun laws make it easy for the ill-intentioned to get guns; prohibitions against criminals’ owning guns are never 100 percent effective. Our goal should be to strike a balance between self-defense and the disarmament of criminals, without violating the Second Amendment. Measures such as King’s have a strong tendency to prevent self-defense more than they do crime, and they keep the law-abiding from exercising their gun rights — the worst balance imaginable.
— Robert VerBruggen, a National Review associate editor, runs the Phi Beta Cons blog.
This law would be about as effective as a Victim Protection Order. In other words, worthless. Actually worse than worthless because, like a VPO, it might give someone a false sense of security.
No way in Hell! This is lawmakers acting like royality. Term limits would fix this junk. 12 years max for House and Senate. Once you leave you can not live in DC for 4 years. No lobbying, too. Rep King is wrong on this issue.
We all know that Rep. King doesn't bat 1000.00, but his sensibilities are usually on target.
BUT he's from the middle of Long Island.
Enjoy the vegetable farm Peter, because that's about the only place you'll have even a decent chance of standing in a "compliant zone".
What were you thinking?
Most public shootings do happen in gun free zones; all school shootings, all church shootings are just two examples. Rep. Kings' proposal will do nothing to stop this from happening. The criminal will simply walk right in knowing that there is not an armed populace present. This is feel good legislation and Rep. King should know better.
I figured some elitist congressman or senator would suggest something, but I didn't think it would be a republican. Like jmmje49er said they think they are royalty. If they feel threatened, then use their $180+ salary or the several million they get for their office to beef up their security, but not one more cent added to the already sickening amount of money they get to spend. NO laws singling them out as more important than any other citizen. Start packing heat or better yet resign if you don't like it. I pray for the Representative, others that were hurt and for the family of those that were killed, but they are no more deserving of my prayers or our laws then any other citizen. God bless the great country!
Mr. Verbruggen - You make a comment I must respectfully disagree with. It is when you say: "Even the standard conservative line about guns — that allowing citizens to carry guns will prevent public shootings — didn’t pan out; Arizona has some of the most lenient gun laws in the nation..." While it is may be true that Arizona has some of the most lenient gun laws, what seems to be lacking is widespread concealed carry in Arizona. (You need two things for concealed to be effective: A law allowing the right to carry, and a population willing to exercise that right.) Some years ago, I did some research on the matter and found that all things considered, Arizona was below average in the percentage exercising their concealed carry rights. As you can see, no one in the immediate vicinity of Loughner had a concealed firearm. While someone did have a concealed firearm. that individual was not in Loughner's immediate vicinity. In such case, a responsible individual with a concealed firarm would not have wanted to use it. First, the individual would not know what's going on, and at a distance, the individual would have to be pretty good with a handgun to hit the target without hurting others. (Also the individual would not know who the target it.) Finally, those who carry concealed are always warned, do not be a vigilante police officer.
As for Rep. Peter King's proposal, it is laughable. Handguns may not be accurate at a thousand feet, but rifles with optical sights are (after a little practice), and rifles can be a lot more deadly and are a lot easier to get. Finally, at that distance, it would be difficult to identify the killer.
Finally to rationalize @ 19:04. Mr. Verbruggen is right on that one. All you have to do is follow the news. Most mass killings/shooting occur in gun free areas. For the shooter, it's like fish in a barrel because there is no one who can shoot back. But don't take my word for that. Read John Lott, Jr., The Bias Against Guns. Remember also, that life is probabilistic. One incident, such as this one, is an anecdote, many such incidents are a story. You will not find many such incidents in areas when concealed carry is widespread.
@Voltaire: What? You don't think the next logical step, banning inflammatory speech within 1,000 feet of a congressman or judge, would be a good idea? For those who hate children and want to see them gunned down by deranged lunatics, Peter King's law makes perfect sense. When seconds count, the police are minutes away giving speeches about Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. And for the author of this piece, the permit holder was not "nearby", he was in a nearby store. Peter King is emblematic of the unthinking liberal Republican establishment. He will be praised to the rooftops by the leftist gun-grabbers.
As a retired New York City Police Officer who does have a carry permit issued by the NYPD I find this new attempt by Mr. King to be completely a waste of time as it doesn't stop a lunatic from doing harm it prevents me from maybe stopping that lunatic from doing harm, this needs to be thought out a little more.
there were actually a couple of concealed hand gun carriers in the vicinity. One such carrier came on the scene within seconds of the shots and was ready to draw his weapon on the shooter. He ran to the sound of the gunshots from the Walgreens next door and approached ready to draw. I don't think it would be a stretch to say that he would not have ran to the gunshots had he not been carrying a weapon. His first action was to disarm another man who was holding the gun - not knowing at that point who the shooter was. He made the decision to not draw on this man because he recognized that the gun was empty and the slide was open. As it turned out, the gunman was in the process of being immobilized and the man holding the gun was assisting. So, the concealed carrier also assisted in immobilizing the gunman. His doing so, ensured the gunman was not going to escape or hurt anyone else.
It is clear to me that if the gunman had been able to reload or if there were more than one shooter, the concealed hand gun carrier would have had the opportunity to prevent an additional tragedy.
Concealed handgun carriers will make a difference given a situation where more deaths are likely.
Why is it that the morons we elect to govern us think that the "solution" to EVERY problem is more legislation... As the author correctly pointed out, a person bent on shooting down dozens of their fellow citizens (and why do members of Congress deserve any more protection than the rest of us???) does ANYONE (even Rep King) actually believe that the fact that it is ALSO illegal to possess a firearm near one of the Illuminati (in addition to that technicality about not killing people) is going to make the most minute difference?
