Sane and reasonable people agree that political battles should be fought with ideas, principles, and words — not guns, bullets, and bombs. But in a nation of more than 300 million, it must be expected that at least a small minority will be neither sane nor reasonable.
With that in mind, Peter King, the new chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg this morning proposed federal legislation that would prevent people from knowingly bringing guns within 1,000 feet of an event at which members of Congress and federal judges are appearing. (This law also would apply to the president, the vice president, and members of the Cabinet but — unlike congressmen and judges — they have security details to protect them.)
This seems pretty commonsensical. It does not, in my view, compromise the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. Even in the old West, cowboys hung up their guns when they entered a saloon.
Such a law will not be a panacea. Anyone carrying a gun openly at a political rally already draws attention. “Concealed carry” is unlawful without a permit in most states and, it goes without saying, lunatics and extremists don’t care what laws are on the books.
But if this can provide even a small measure of additional protection for public servants who are too often too vulnerable, it’s worth considering.
"it goes without saying, lunatics and extremists don’t care what laws are on the books"
Then why bother with another law? Further restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners will not help.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis proposed law is a step in the wrong direction. It will only hurt law abiding citizens. There was at least one person at that event or in the parking lot who was carrying a pistol and his actions prevented the loss of additional lives. The VT shooting incident may have resulted in few deaths if the campus wasn't a gun free zone. These laws do compromise the 2nd amendment. It gives the illusion of security when there is none. People forget that there insane and irrational people out there that may start shooting at them at any moment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, what you're saying is that you know that this law won't deter criminals (or crazy people), just law-abiding people who wouldn't be shooting congresspeople anyways. Hmmm...actually, that law seems to do nothing but compromise 2nd Amnd. rights. Since, by your own admission, it won't stop attacks like the one in Tucson.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWho will it stop? What actual purpose will be served by the law? If the Tuscon shooter had been spotted with a gun, and the police declined to take action, even to question him, because he wasn't breaking any law at that precise moment, then yeah, maybe. But that's not the actual world we live in, and that's not what happened. Had anybody seen him carrying a gun, he would have been questioned, and his obvious insanity would have quickly revealed itself. He would have been detained, at least, and no shooting would have happened.
Such a law would be a further expansion of the security theater that has gripped this country entirely too closely. We're already searched far too often before being admitted to far too many places.
The criminal intent on killing a congressman is not going to be deterred by such a law. The killer here was not carrying the weapon openly. It won't do anything to solve the problem at which it is aimed, and so it should not be passed.
And will there be an intent requirement? Can the Congressman waive the protection of the bill? Or will such a law functionally bar Congressmen and judges from attending hunting events, NRA fundraisers, etc.? It's a stupid idea. Well-intentioned, no doubt, but useless and stupid.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI disagree. This is like all the "for the children" laws that want to keep liquor stores XXX feet from schools. Why is 1000' a magic number? Why not make it so you can't carry in the same zip code? This is just smoke and mirrors - no substance, just style. If this law were in effect in AZ - several of the "heros" would be guilty of federal crimes - because they were carrying concealed at the time. Frankly we are putting too much emphasis on federal officials. And where by the way, is the outrage over the actual assassination of a sitting federal judge? If it is NRO's editorial position to support this measure- you can count me out.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseQuite possibly the least effective law one could imagine. Let's use the Tucson shooting as an example...but imagine had already been in place. Would the nut job have carried out his attack? Yes, he would have carried it out regardless of Rep. King's proposed law.
Suppose more citizens had firearms on them. Would there have likely been more or less people shot and killed? More than likely there would have been less. Why? Because rather than waiting until he ran out of ammunition someone could have shot him immediately.
Perhaps my logic is off...but it would seem to me that a more effective way to stop this type of attack is for more firearm ownership and carrying to be encouraged. Someone please help me understand how my logic is wrong - seriously would love to hear it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf the guy was willing to shoot a congresswoman in the head, common sense should tell us that he won't care about a law saying he can't have a gun near a congresswoman. Such a law would only disarm the law abiding that might otherwise protect themselves and other from the lawless. Guys like the AZ shooter will know it, rely upon it and act upon it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSuch a law would not prevent criminals from going near Congressmen and federal judges with guns--certainly it would not have deterred the Tucson shooter. So the legislation would be ineffective, and could prevent law-abiding gun owners from disarming a shooter.
I also think this legislation is of dubious constitutionality, because it does not regulate commerce. It suffers from the same defects as the no-guns-near-a-school law that was struck down in Lopez.
Finally, I disagree with any legislation that gives legislators and judges special protection.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusecruiserman: "Then why bother with another law? Further restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners will not help."
Because it will make Congressman King look like he's doing something? That would be my guess.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't see how this would have prevented this incident. I'm ambivalent about that suggestion though. It seems to be fine on the face of it. Again though, that law would have done absolutely nothing to prevent this tragedy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGlad to see that even though I've done nothing "wrong" you are willing to require something of me which may adversely affect my daily routine. Thanks for making decisions for me. Loughner is the latest in a long line of nuts and assassins who, you admit, are never going to obey the law. Why encumber us with further restrictions? Require the law enforcement agencies do their work which it appears the Arizona sheriff didn't. Any association with Bloomberg is a red flag to the rights of the armed citizen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis law would not have prevented the Az. shooting.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSeems a dumb, knee-jerk idea. It will not deter or stop anyone. Except that it will stop people from stopping an attacker. In Tuscon, there was a 24-year-old carrying a weapon who ran to the sound of the guns. Bystanders had already tackled the shooter, but if they had not, this bystander would have stopped the massacre.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo-we do not want Wild West or vigilante justice, but responsible and concerned citizens have stopped shooting sprees. Remember Appalachian State.
This law sounds like another "gun free zone" idea. It sounds like one is doing something, but really it amounts to unilateral disarmament.
This is completely wrong-headed -- you're buying into all the false premises of the gun-banners. As you say, "lunatics and extremists don’t care what laws are on the books." So it doesn't go without saying if you don't understand the import of the words you're writing.
Passing a law to ban the law-abiding from carrying guns where they were previously permitted doesn't provide "even a small measure of additional protection." I challenge you to explain exactly what it is that makes up this additional 'small measure. It is rather another small measure of infringement for the sake of false symbolism, and is more damaging to both safety and freedom than you seem to understand.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat's so special about members of Congress and Federal judges? It seems to me that accepting the premise this law is accepting that guns ought to be banned within 1000 feet of everybody.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWould you then extend the same law to events where candidates for the same elected office are present? Or is such protection only deserved by incumbents?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI just saw a large collection of tweets calling for the death of Sarah Palin before reading your post...
Exactly, PatHMV:
All this will do is make those who vote for it self-satisfied, running next time on campaign (sorry...too martial a word...contest ok? Fine) ads that say "We solved the gun violence problem!" At the very least, it is a false-sense-of-security machine. Ditto re. the event problems.
Of course, one thing it will prevent are photos in future like that one of the legally-rifle-toting guy at the Tea Party event (assuming any elected folks are there) who was famously used as "proof" of the Tea Party's racism (until they un-zoomed the picture to reveal that the gentleman was black.)
The upside of having a fair, reasonable, and grounded-in-the-rule-of-law justice system is that you prosecute and/or punish people for actual BEHAVIOR, not their ideas. The downside is when you attempt to ban ALL behavior that MIGHT lead to bad behavior eventually.
And Cliff, your old-west analogy raises a disturbing possibility---are you trying to say that our judges and elected officials are spending a lot of time in saloons? It WOULD explain a lot of things....(Smile)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is the worst idea I've read at the National Review Online in many months.
Mr. May, you're seriously confused about the very most basic concepts, beginning with who the "bad guys" are.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTragic events spawn bad law. The actions of the shooter were *already* illegal, and yet they happened. How would this additional regulation improve safety at public gatherings?
Does Peter King believe this law would have prevented the events in Tuscon, or is this a more obvious attempt to post a feel-good law for public relations purposes?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI completely disagree. It clearly *is* an infringement on our right to own and carry weapons. Worse, any time you create a "gun free" zone you have created a "target rich environment". Mass killings almost always happen at places where people have been disarmed. Schools are more dangerous because of these idiotic laws, not safer.
Our representatives would be safer surrounded by gun-packing constituents than at the center of a herd of unprotected sheep.
By your own admission criminals ignore gun laws. What makes you think this one would be different?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse