After huddling with detectives and security experts over the weekend, Rep. Peter King, a Long Island Republican, decided to respond to the Tucson tragedy with a legislative proposal: make it illegal to carry a firearm within 1,000 feet of a federal official. In an interview with National Review Online, King explained his rationale and defended the measure’s constitutionality, calling it a “reasonable restriction.”
King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, acknowledges that his legislation, if it had been on the books, might not have prevented the attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D., Ariz.) and others. “Maybe not in this case, but in others it could be prevention,” he argues.
“It would be helpful to the extent that if the police saw him with a bulge in his pocket or saw him touching his pocket or rubbing his jacket, it could raise their suspicion. Then they could go over, and if he had [a gun], they could make him leave,” King says. “But do I expect someone like [Jared Lee Loughner] to follow the law? Absolutely not.”
What about a situation where a gun is fully concealed and law-enforcement officials are unable to spot anything suspicious? “In that case, then this wouldn’t work, but there can be cases where it will. Would it work in five percent of cases? Ten percent? Twenty percent? Thirty percent? I don’t know, but I do believe it would certainly work in some instances. I don’t see the downside.”
In Tucson, onlooker Joe Zamudio was armed when he witnessed the developing scene in the parking lot. Zamudio, within seconds, had his hand on his gun, ready to shoot, in case Loughner was not subdued. Does King think citizens have the right to be armed, and respond, during unexpected violent outbursts in public?
“It’s more helpful if you had security in the area,” King replies. “If something did start, and police were firing, I would not want a civilian firing at the same time. When we balance the equities, I’m saying there is a greater good to be obtained by keeping weapons out of that thousand-foot zone.”
Enforcement, King admits, would be tricky, so “reasonable exceptions” will be detailed in the legislative language. “I don’t think the federal government has the right to keep someone from bringing a gun to a state or local event,” he says. “We will have to make exceptions, for example, for storeowners who have guns in their store for protection; it’s their right to have them there.”
Another exception may be making the so-called ‘bubble’ around public officials only applicable at public events — enabling neighbors of public officials who may own firearms to not be bothered. “It would be primarily about public events,” King says. “Again, laws should be interpreted reasonably and we will write it to allow reasonable exceptions.”
Ultimately, unlike the Gun-Free School-Zones Act, which was contested several years ago, King believes that his proposal passes the constitutional smell-test, due to its specific federal component. “It will not significantly impact one’s right to bear arms,” he says. Still, he is not expecting much support within the GOP caucus for his idea.
On this, King = FAIL.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne thousand feet? Really. For one, the effective range of a handgun is far less. Then he wants to allow exceptions. Why not for...concealed permit weapon holders then. Maybe, might, could...not good reasons for yet another law.
I hope the GOP caucus doesn't support this bill. I see a wag on another blog came up with what is probably a better bill...keep Congress 1000 feet away from any writing materials within 30 days of some high profile criminal act so it doesn't pass more poorly conceived, knee jerk legislation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't see how a law like this would make any difference to anything. If someone has a gun, and intends to use it on a public official, it's difficult to believe that they would be deterred by the fact that they may also violate Rep. King's law, in addition to, you know, the laws against shooting someone.
Can we please be grownups? If it's easy for people (including mentally unstable people) to get guns, then inevitably people will use those guns on other people. The price we pay for the freedom to bear arms is a high murder rate, which will inevitably include murders of public officials. That's the choice we make. Let's be honest and mature about it and accept the consequences of our decisions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePeter King's support for the IRA is as disgusting as it is hypocritical. The individual distinguishable from a gentleman didn't have much of a problem with the IRA nearly killing Mrs. Thatcher in the Brighton Bombing (and paralyzing Lady Tebbit). Would he allow having a gun near visiting British officials?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStupid idea. Why 1,000 feet? Why not make it 10,000 feet so the politician is completely out of range of all firearms. What about instances where a lawful conceal and carry permit holder unknowingly enters the 1,000 zone? That may be likely in cases where a pol is visiting a grocery and crosses paths with an actual shopper.
As for bulges in pockets and touching of jackets, really? That's going to be ripe for abuse. The public event only idea is similarly silly, how is the public supposed know that a politician's visit triggers the law? If the politician is attending a public mass but not speaking, is the law triggered? If the priest subsequently asks the politician to speak are the gun holders all supposed to race to the exits?
This type of law will only succeed in making criminals out of law abiding citizens.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow fortunate that "onlooker" Joe Zamudio didn't pull out his gun and start shooting! Zamudio and others describe the scene as "mayhem" -- who knows how many others he might have accidentally shot -- an unintended consequence of an attempt to help by an untrained, inexperienced civilian.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat is a "public event" that would be covered?
And although there is a serious downside* for any civilian to open fire when police are present, I sure as heck wouldn't want to be the person whom the bad guy is targeting, and have to hope the officers aren't "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." I'm a competitive practical pistol shooter. So many times, I have seen civilians out-shoot LEOs that I have a very hard time with the notion that I should not be able to respond myself.
*There's already a very tricky component to carrying...When a uniformed police officer has a weapon drawn, people are not afraid of the officer; they're afraid of whatever it was that made the officer draw. When an off duty LEO or armed civilian draws, people are afraid of them. With this law, if I happen to need to draw near a "public event", I will have opened myself up to a federal charge, and will more likely be seen as a bad guy to any responding officers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis guy is seriously off the reservation for some reason that is not immediately apparent. Is he bucking for a cabinet post?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHi Andy, your comments about armed civilians being a hinderance to police betrays ignorance of the subject. Civilians are much less likely than police to shoot an innocent bystander, and logically speaking, there is no difference between a civilian with a gun permit and an off-duty cop.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse“Again, laws should be interpreted reasonably and we will write it to allow reasonable exceptions.”
Write enough exceptions and what's the point of the law?
Let's fast-forward into the future. Rep. Smith-Jones is at a ribbon cutting ceremony, and a psychotic nutcase opens fire. The nutcase is subdued and put into custody. The charges are murder, attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and... carrying a firearm withing 1000 feet?
What exactly has been accomplished by this law?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@AndyS: Yeah, police officers never miss. They are endowed with superhuman marksmanship and judgment. They never accidentally hit bystanders. All civilians are rubes, with no ability at all to hit the broad side of a bus and no judgment of when to shoot. Holy cow.
Do you know what counts for "training" in many police departments? I know police officers who shoot twice a year: The y practice the day before they re-qualify and the day they re-qualify. I know civilians...ordinary people...lawyers, doctors, pharmacists, engineers, welders, restaurateurs, etc., who shoot several hundred rounds per week.
The biggest risk to Zamudio would have been a response from a police officer (or another armed citizen) who thought he was a bad guy.
I guarantee you that in a situation similar to the Florida school board shooting last month, that Zamudio (or I, or many others) would not have hesitated to open fire.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePeter King is my Congressman - and I have immense respect, even love, for the man.
But on unions, pork, and guns he is out of his mind. I guess you can take the boy out of Queen,s but you can't take Queens out of the boy.
For a guy who ran interference for the IRA for decades - you'd think he'd have some sense of Americans right to defend themselves. The only person this law is going to protect is the madman whose the only one who brings a gun inside the 1000 yard perimeter. He knows he's the only one armed for sure.
Oh well. Politics is the art of the possible, and Pete King is a unicorn in New York politics - a Republican in the NYC area.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKing's argument is sophomoric and unconvincing. It won't infringe on our rights -- because he says it won't? Please.
This is the sort of idiotic knee-jerk I expect from Democrats. I don't know King, but he just unmasked himself as a RINO.
The proper response from federal lawmakers to the murders in Tuscon is -- absolutely nothing. This kind of violence is, thankfully, extremely rare, and if over 25,000 federal gun laws didn't prevent it, adding one more certainly won't.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, we restrict people from carrying weapons within a thousand feet and law-abiding citizens do just that. But how about those who don't abide by the law. You know, criminals with ill intentions?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow, the more King speaks on this subject, the less respect I have for him.
From everything we know about these kinds of acts - spree or mayhem killing - they aren't spur of the moment acts. They're planned, sometimes for years, and they are monumentally deliberate and not happenstance in any way, shape or form. They aren't caused by guys who happen to be standing in a crowd and then get prodded somehow to start shooting. Put another way, once someone decides to mass murder, they aren't going to be concerned with breaking other laws. Loughner himself hitched a cab ride and left without paying the cabbie, which of course is another crime.
King uses the canard that with such a law, police could stop someone and question them if they saw the weapon. Newsflash Peter, police don't need an excuse to speak to anyone. There's no federal, state or case law that prohibits police from approaching anyone and saying, "hey, what's up". It happens every minute, of everyday in this country.
If King really wants to help, perhaps he could hold some hearings and subpoena Duphik to talk about how his department had so many complaints about this kid, and yet, not a single order of protection was sought - an order that would have prohibited the shooter from obtaining his weapon in the first place.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKing,
Quit while you are behind. You can't out-Bloomberg Mayor Bloomberg.
"long Island Republican" indeed.
Sounds like Peter King wants to be invited to Oliver Stone and Babra Streisand's cocktail parties more than anything.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAndy, in what sense was it "fortunate" that Zamudio didn't draw or fire his weapon? The man used his judgment and made the correct decision. Why chalk that up to luck?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI know how we can all be safe...
Pass a law requiring all of us to stay home and wait for government officials to deliver our food.
Those of you who disagree with my idea are obviously not for safety and care less about people than I do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePeter King is tone deaf.
The national upchuck in November wasn't a Republican endorsement. It was raw disgust with Congress legislating as a privileged class, instead of as representatives of the people's will.
So what does King do? He proposes a law that formalizes the divide, by enhancing privileges for our elected representatives at the expense of the folks they represent.
And, let's suppose - against the well-reasoned arguments here - that this law is effective. Why not such a law for celebrities? They engender the same sort of envy-love-hate responses, many more intensely, as politicians. Billy Joel has done a lot more for the common happiness than Peter King - shouldn't he be protected at least as well?
In short, this is a stupid, insulting law, proposed by a pol who is oblivious or uncaring of the 'we count more than the common folk' message he sends.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo matter who next chairman of the RNC happens to be, with Republicans like King reflexively proposing idiotic laws they will continue to have an uphill battle raising funds.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse