Arizona Shooting Fallout: GOP Rep. Will Introduce New Strict Gun Law

[East_TN_Patriot]

GOP Rep. Will Introduce New Strict Gun Law | The Blaze

A popular GOP congressman announced today that he will soon introduce gun control legislation that will make it illegal to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a federal official.

Rep. Peter King (R-NY), who has generally been supportive of gun control measures, announced the new legislation alongside strong anti-gun New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Not surprisingly, the legislation, which will be introduced in the upcoming weeks, got Bloomberg’s stamp of approval.

King’s office issued a statement about the bill, which reads in part:

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.

Bloomberg, the head of the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, applauded the measure, saying at a joint news conference the “system that’s supposed to protect us from dangerous and deranged people has failed.”

At that same news conference, King defended the bill, saying “The fact is they do represent the people who elect them, and it‘s essential if we’re going to continue to have contact that the public who is at these meetings are ensured of their own safety.”

According to him, the measure does not conflict with conservative views on gun laws.

“From a conservative perspective, we have to have a stable society, we have to keep crime down,” King said. “You cannot do that if the police cannot be assured that illegal guns are not on the street.”

“To have a stable society and a safe society, we have to remove illegal guns,” he continued.

But the main issue might be, if a gun is already “illegal” why would we need more legislation to outlaw it? For example, in many states, laws already prevent people from carrying a concealed weapon. And the other question is how would this legislation prevent a crazed gunman — who already has no respect for laws against murder — from doing exactly what Loughner did?

Despite the rhetoric of the news conference, all indications are that King’s legislation is not just aimed at illegal guns (that would be redundant). It seems to apply more to “legal” gun owners — those who have permits to carry a concealed weapon, or those who are more inclined to abide by the law.

Reports indicate that at least one such person was at the Tucson Safeway the day Rep. Gabriell Giffords was shot. Joe Zamudio is one of the men who helped subdue Tucson gunman Jared Loughner. Zamudio admitted he was carrying a concealed weapon at the time, and

he was seconds away from using it. Under King’s legislation, however, Zamudio’s gun would have been illegal.

Still, Bloomberg thinks the legislation does not infringe one’s right to keep and bear arms.

“That does not take away the First amendment, it protects it,” he said. “That does not take away the Second amendment, I think it protects it”

King is the same congressman who vowed to hold hearings on radical Islam, and currently chairs the House Homeland Security Committee. He said he expects the president’s support on the bill, which would specifically make it illegal to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of the president, vice president, members of Congress, or judges of the Federal Judiciary.

King isn’t the first legislator to vow more gun legislation. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) said they will soon introduce a measure to ban high-capacity gun clips (defined as more than 10 rounds).

Edited January 13, 2011 by strickj
Removed ad

[Guest Bronker]

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/newsworthy-reports/51485-peter-king-leading-republican-introduce-strict-gun-control-legislation.html Edited January 13, 2011 by Bronker

[DaveTN]

In the United States, it is illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a school.

It is?

[Oh Shoot]

It is?

Yes, but basically only applies to unlawful possession of loaded gun.

This is actually one law that doesn't actually penalize a lawful gun carrier.

----------------------------------------

Text of the law

Title 18 U.S.C §922(q) The Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 States:

(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

( Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

(iii) that is— (I) not loaded; and (II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;

(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;

(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;

(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or

(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.(3) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (, it shall be unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the safety of another, to discharge or attempt to discharge a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the person knows is a school zone. ( Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the discharge of a firearm— (i) on private property not part of school grounds; (ii) as part of a program approved by a school in the school zone, by an individual who is participating in the program; (iii) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in a school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual; or (iv) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity. (4) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as preempting or preventing a State or local government from enacting a statute establishing gun free school zones as provided in this subsection.

(2) It shall be unlawful for any person, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the safety of another, to discharge or attempt to discharge a firearm.

Definitions

Title 18 U.S.C. §921(25) The term “school zone” means— (A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or ( within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school. (26) The term “school” means a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as determined under State law.

-------------------------------

Synopis from Wiki:

Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- OS

[TnEngineer]

How about passing a law that makes it illegal for a public official to be within 1,000 feet of me? Perhaps dress them in clown suits and make them wear bells so, we know when they are approaching?

[bigwakes]

I think to carry this out all congressmen and judges should where GPS ankle braclets and give their itineray for the day to be sure I don't stop at the same red light and wind up in jail. If they really want to protect citizens make a law that restricts carryin a gun within 1000 feet of another human. They really think Laughner would have abided by that law even though the whole murder charge didn't deter him. It's a shame we have to wait 2 more years to vote some of these idiots out.

[rstandley]

Yet another feel good law that will do nothing to protect people and cause problems for us law abiding folks. I guess I am suppose to know where every federal official is and what they look like and the location of every Federal building. I guess driving by one on the way home would be a crime. Besides, you cannot intercept a shooter hiding a gun that has not given any indication of the crime they are about to do, as if they ever try. The law is worthless junk

[rstandley]

I guess that these congress cretters did not see the ruling that the Police do not have the duty to protect.

[rstandley]

“You cannot do that if the police cannot be assured that illegal guns are not on the street.”

We done such a good job of keep drugs and vistors from south of the border off the streets, why not guns. He has no clue what is going on in the world, or does he?

Ok, I am done bitching.

[Guest last1is4me]

Im fairly sure that a shooter would know that the shooting itself would break the law so what would this accomplish. Im sure the shooter wouldnt care about breaking one more law such as no guns within 1000 feet.

[East_TN_Patriot]

Im sure the shooter wouldnt care about breaking one more law such as no guns within 1000 feet.

Take the wack-job that did the shooting in Arizona for instance. Clearly, that pesky law about not killing people didn't have any effect on him, so surely a gun-control law would have.

As I point out to people when I discuss the gun control issue, once a person makes the decision to commit the ultimate crime - murder - all other lesser offenses are automatically null and void in the offender's mind.

[eapking]

Stupid law. Another lawmaker who believes in the fallacy of the "honest criminal".