King to introduce gun-restriction legislation in response to Tucson shooting

[sjr09 155]

Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, will introduce legislation that will make it a federal crime to carry a firearm within 1,000 feet of federal officeholders and judges in response to the shooting in Tucson that killed Judge John Roll and gravely injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. King, who chairs the Homeland Security committee in the House, will get support from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a longtime advocate for gun control (via The Daily Caller):

Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, is planning to introduce legislation that would make it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official, according to a person familiar with the congressman's intentions.

King is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. The proposed law follows the

Saturday shooting

of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and a federal judge that left

six dead

, including the judge, and 14 wounded.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, one of the nation's most outspoken gun-control advocates, is backing King's measure and is expected to put the weight of his pro-gun-control organization behind it.

There are two questions involved in any gun-control legislation, the first of which is whether it will be constitutional, and the second of which is whether it will do any good. Let's take those in order. Courts have thus far upheld reasonable restrictions on where guns may and may not be carried, such as courthouses and in the vicinity of schools.

However, those are fixed locations, not mobile personnel, locations for which a court could reasonably expect most people to know. If one carries a gun legally to a public place without knowledge of the presence of a judge or member of Congress, then an arrest would probably be unreasonable (although courts might end up ruling otherwise). And if an arrest without any kind of attempt to initiate an assault is considered unreasonable, then the law is superfluous, since the attempt itself would be illegal already.

Some may also argue that an attempt to create a special class of protected people in this law might also fail to pass constitutional muster. I'd say a court would take a long look at whether Congress has a compelling state interest in passing such legislation, at least on that point, and wouldn't bet that they'd rule no. A better question might be jurisdiction, where the law would create a mandate on state and local police to enforce federal law.

The Obama administration just got done arguing in federal court that Arizona should be constrained from enforcing federal immigration law, to which the district court agreed. Would states not have an argument in the other direction in the case of this law?

Next, let's look at its effectiveness. Would such a law work in the sense that it would make these protected classes more safe? Such a law would not have stopped the shooting in Tucson. Had anyone in law enforcement seen the pistol in Jared Lee Loughner's hands, they almost certainly would have reacted to it immediately by detaining him even without the federal law. Depending on the circumstances, they may not have been able to prosecute him under existing state law, but perhaps they could have confiscated his gun and revoked his permit after discovering just how insane he was and the evidence of his grudge against Giffords. Of course, the sheriff's department in Tucson already knew of Loughner and hadn't done much about it, but that won't change under King's proposed law, either.

King's effort is of questionable constitutional and operational merit at best. It seems like another example of my axiom, Legislate in haste, repent at leisure. Rather than issue knee-jerk proposals to change the law, let's see where the evidence leads us in this case to determine how best to protect everyone from lunatics like Loughner.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

oh yes, because he wouldn't have walked into the area with a gun then

Yup, let's play on the sheeples emotions here.

Utter stupidity.

1,000 feet from a government official? Seriously? Do you REALLY think that's going to stop anyone who wants to get to them? All you are doing is alienating law abiding citizens who carry firearms.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

The 9 year old is dead because she didn't listen to Paul and pack her own gat when she went to learn a civics lesson right Paul? Was there a member of our fabled well armed militia present to save the day?

No just another well armed psycho with a gun... Admitting at least that much should not be hard to do.

We can agree though that this legislation would be pointless.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The 9 year old is dead because she didn't listen to Paul and pack her own gat when she went to learn a civics lesson right Paul? Was there a member of our fabled well armed militia present to save the day?

No just another well armed psycho with a gun... Admitting at least that much should not be hard to do.

We can agree though that this legislation would be pointless.

Had there been someone else armed there, then perhaps less would have been killed and/or hurt.

Life is full of 'had theres' though, isn't it?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Had there been someone else armed there, then perhaps less would have been killed and/or hurt.

Life is full of 'had theres' though, isn't it?

Hardly a ringing endorsement of the safety afforded by private gun ownership though is it? And an untrained John Wayne wannabe trying to shoot this moron may have done far more harm than good, or are the police just burning tax dollars with worthless training?

Edited January 12, 2011 by ready4ONE

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Hardly a ringing endorsement of the safety afforded by private gun ownership though is it? And an untrained John Wayne wannabe trying to shoot this moron may have done far more harm than good, or are the police just burning tax dollars with worthless training?

Most aren't. Though even your most well trained officer isn't prepared for a random gunman to walk into a crowd. Composure is still based on the individual. While psych exams usually give you semi-capable people, the experience itself is something entirely different.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Yes the legislation is knee Jerk and pointless. As to everything else there are no certainties.

[slim 1,530]

So only federal reps and judges are covered? What about all of our state reps and/or city council? Are they not "important enough?"

Perhaps someday these "representatives" will remember they are "of the people" and not "over the people."

Two Dems from NY trying to pass gun-control legislation. 2 for 2!

[sjr09 155]

oh yes, because he wouldn't have walked into the area with a gun then

Yup, let's play on the sheeples emotions here.

Utter stupidity.

1,000 feet from a government official? Seriously? Do you REALLY think that's going to stop anyone who wants to get to them? All you are doing is alienating law abiding citizens who carry firearms.

I agree!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

That will insure a safe zone for future assasins. Brilliant.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I'm pretty sure Jared Loughner ignored many laws already in existence. But, hey.... why not advance your agenda against the American people?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I'm pretty sure Jared Loughner ignored many laws already in existence. But, hey.... why not advance your agenda against the American people?

No no, you don't get it. If there were different laws in place he would have thought twice about his actions! He wouldn't have dared to try such a stunt knowing that the law was there to stop him! I mean that ink on paper can really kick your butt sometimes!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I'm pretty sure Jared Loughner ignored many laws already in existence. But, hey.... why not advance your agenda against the American people?

yeah, never mind he intended to kill all the people he could...a pretty serious crime, even in Arizona. he would be stopped because it is illegal to have a gun within 1000 ft. of the official?

No no, you don't get it. If there were different laws in place he would have thought twice about his actions! He wouldn't have dared to try such a stunt knowing that the law was there to stop him! I mean that ink on paper can really kick your butt sometimes!

And if was limited to 10 rounds per magazine he would have killed only 6 people instead of...6 people.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Where were these geniuses when we needed them? Why didn't they make it illegal to hijack airplanes and fly them into buil...oh. NM

[Ban Hammer 13,399]

Where were these geniuses when we needed them? Why didn't they make it illegal to hijack airplanes and fly them into buil...oh. NM

must be tree hugging hour. please hold.