Free Markets, Free People

Say “no” to Rep. King’s proposed gun law

Well the usual over-reaction is under way after the Tucson shooting of Rep. Giffords.  I’ve mentioned the silly nonsense about a bill to ban “crosshairs” in political speech (which begs the question, what part of “Congress shall make no law” concerning political speech as laid out in the First Amendment).  But Rep. Pete King, a NY Republican, has decided that a “gun control” measure is what is necessary.  His solution?

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.

Why is it the propensity of these folks to restrict the freedoms of others instead of doing something to increase their own security?  Mostly because they can. Look, I can understand the fear this sort of a situation brings, but I’m sorry, restricting the freedom of law abiding citizens because of your fear is not what this country is all about – not if freedom is the fundamental idea upon which it is founded.

Consider this scenario in light of King’s nonsense – a legal possessor of a concealed carry permit is in a diner with his firearm on his hip sipping his morning coffee and minding his own business.  Some “government official” drops in unannounced to do a little per-election glad-handing.  The man with his legal firearm is now a inadvertent but prosecutable law breaker.

So what’s King going to do – make every government official wear a sign around their neck so those who might be carrying legal firearms can give them a 1,000 foot wide berth?  Why not just put – dare I say it – crosshairs on them?  Because if this is to become the law then it is incumbent upon “government officials” to ensure that those who might inadvertently break the law otherwise, are fully aware of when “government officials” are in the area.

Secondly, I hate to break it to King, but as with all laws, those who have a criminal agenda will not obey it or even give it a passing thought.  Essentially it will only ensnare those who most likely are innocently doing their own business.   Guys like Loughner won’t change their plans one iota because King and Congress pass some law about 1,000 feet of space.  It will only become another after-the-fact charge, another law broken, to add to the charge sheet.  But won’t stop a thing.

It is one thing to say you can’t bring a firearm to within 1,000 feet of a school or government building.  They don’t move and they’re easily identifiable.  Not so with “government officials”.

Bad idea and would make a bad law – as simple as that.  Oh – and when Mayor Michael Bloomberg comes out enthusiastically for this restriction on our freedom, you should automatically know it’s a bad idea, Rep. King.

Don’t make laws in emotional haste after the fact – they almost always end up being bad laws that further restrict our freedoms.  And this one would be no exception.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

25 Responses to Say “no” to Rep. King’s proposed gun law

  • If any of these Congresspersons or Senators are afraid to do their jobs or to meet the public who hire them they should resign. There will be many courgeous citizens who will gladly do the job.

  • Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is rejecting gun-control legislation offered by the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee in response to the weekend shootings of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and 19 others in Arizona.  …
    King’s legislation got the cold shoulder from Boehner and other Republicans after it was announced.
    Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said the Speaker would not support King’s legislation.
    The office of Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said the majority leader is reserving judgment until the King bill is finalized.
    “Mr. Cantor believes it’s appropriate to adequately review and actually read legislation before forming an opinion about it,” Cantor spokesman Brad Dayspring stated in an e-mail.

  • So the enforcement of this law, if it becomes that, protects them how?  If the guy with a gun who actually intends to use it gets close enough that you think this law is in play, you’re already going down.  The way I see it, it’s just another charge on top of those that already exist.

  • This is unconstitutional on it’s face. It is clearly laid out in United States v. Lopez.

  • Typical stupid over-reaction.
    and…..
    WHY THE DEVIL should they (yet again) get special protection and privileges  that the rest of us aren’t entitled to just because they’re elected to political office?
     
    Talk about thinking themselves to be some kind of nobility.

  • One thousand feet? Do these boneheads understand effective ranges?
    What’s next, rifles with scopes?

    • Heh, NO dude, they don’t. It’s a gun, in addition to guns killing people (by themselves…did I ever tell you how I used to frequently come home of an evening and discover that my 9mm Browning Hi-power had, once again, just ‘gone off’ and blown 8 or 9 holes in my walls? No?  well…it did…a lot….trust me, I had to sell the damn thing and replaces it  with an 1861 Springfield .58 caliber rifled musket, now I only occasionally find 1 hole in the wall, because the musket hasn’t figured out how to reload itself, thank Gaia….), they are magic, and their range is practically unlimited.
       
      Besides, 1000 feet souuuunddddsss good…it’s a long way!  It’s further than they’d walk for a martini!

      • I knew this used car salesman who complained that TV shows make it look like cars can turn over at will.
        Movies like “Shooter” do the same for guns.

  • Consider the possible outcome of the Tucson shooting with this proposed law.
    Laughner would be charged with one more crime.  The same number or more people would be dead and injured.
    The person in the WalGreen who came out to hold the “suspect” probably would have fled rather than get involved because he was packing.  If he didn’t he would be charged under the new law.

    • The new law would also have the same effect that occurs on college campuses (i.e. Virginia Tech, etc.) where they are designated “gun free zones”  … gunmen can kill with impunity because they know they won’t come upon some civilian with a gun.

  • More gun control is DOA, guys.
    That does NOT mean we go to sleep.  It just means that even OwlGore knew it was a vote killer (can I say that…?).

    • Let’s congratulate Rep King for presenting a compromise piece of legislation that can be quickly set aside.

  • ” make every government official wear a sign around their neck so those who might be carrying legal firearms can give them a 1,000 foot wide berth?”

    There is already a traditional, and quite appropriate, method of identifying politicians; the ‘dunce cap’.

  • Forcing government officials to wear identifying signs would make it easier to avoid them. Perhaps we could also round them up and put them on an island somewhere, far, far away. Then the adults could do what needs to be done and get on with life. What if whacko had used his car to simply run down as many people as he could? Would it be illegal to operator a motor vehicle within 1000′ of a politician?

  • After the “Summer of Hate” (i.e. those horrible, horrible days when members of the nobility Congress had to suffer the indignity of having to listen to their constituents warn against voting for ObamaCare), it’s no surprise that our divinely-appointed rulers members of Congress are worried about their security.  Why, if people are so crazy as to complain about more spending and government control over their lives benevolent laws to make their lives better that will also reduce the deficit, there’s just no telling what ELSE they might do.

    / sarc

    I’m ashamed that a Republican has offered up this ridiculous and frankly cowardly bill.  Indeed, it seems to me that, given recent examples of members of Congress assaulting their constituents, we need protection from THEM, not the other way ’round.

    Rick is right: if these cowardly idiots and thieves are so terrified of their constituents that they feel the need to abridge yet another of our rights in the name of protecting themselves from us, then they ought to resign and let somebody do the job who has some spine and (hopefully) some integrity, common sense, and a real respect for the Constitution.

    looker - [D]id I ever tell you how I used to frequently come home of an evening and discover that my 9mm Browning Hi-power had, once again, just ‘gone off’ and blown 8 or 9 holes in my walls?… I had to sell the damn thing and replaces it  with an 1861 Springfield .58 caliber rifled musket, now I only occasionally find 1 hole in the wall, because the musket hasn’t figured out how to reload itself.

    Lucky you don’t own a truly evil gun like a Desert Eagle (the choice of ALL discriminating movie villains) or an assault weapon that wouldn’t have settled for just shooting holes in your wall: it would have called a cab, stopped at the nearest gun show to get a “loophole” buddy, then stolen a car and gone on a three-state killing spree.

    • “And the fact that you’ve got “Replica” written down the side of your guns…”
      ” And the fact that I’ve got “Desert Eagle point five O written down the side of mine…”
       
       

  • I can see most of you are Tea Party/NRA members. You all seem to think that assassins are akin to someone in a James Bond movie who can hit a target spot on from 1000 yards away, are former Special Ops, and plan these things out with detail and careful thought.
    In fact they are psychologically imbalanced and implusive people who more than likely would not be too difficult to spot, would be reckless, etc and there may be a better chance of preventing things like this.
    People preaching the 2nd amendment make me laugh since most only interpret the Bill of Rights and Constitution in a way that most suits them. Hell, most people dont even interpret (especially Tea Partiers) the 10th Amendment correctly. Having a magazine clip with 30 bullets is plain outright insane and there is simply no reason to have it available. The fact that someone could get it if they really tried isnt relevant to the above type individual who is unstabile, unpredictable and impulsive. By the time he found the magazine his new target would have been Barney.

    • “Hell, most people dont even interpret (especially Tea Partiers) the 10th Amendment correctly.”

      How do most people interpret it?
      What is the correect interpretation?

    • In fact they are psychologically imbalanced and implusive people who more than likely would not be too difficult to spot,

      It’s so easy that Sheriff Dipdunk, with three or more opportunities to arrest the perp for making death threats (felonies) couldn’t figure it out.
      But wait-a-darn-minute; us tea partiers are supposed to be unbalanced, so how is it we know enough to keep out distance?
      All silliness aside, the point is that the knee jerks in Congress are going at it backward which is sure to cause them to miss several points. You, as well, miss several points, such as the fact that SpecOps guys plan a lot more because the intend to escape/evade detection.
      One last point: Loughner left enough of a trial to suggest that perhaps he didn’t need to be incarcerated but he should have been evaluated, which would have, at the least, put his name in the NCIC/FBI database. Of course, the VA Tech shooter’s case was botched as well.

    • “I can see most of you are…”

      I can see you need glasses. 

    • wow- overall one of the most interesting and confusing rants I’ve seen.  We allegedly know about weapons (we’re NRA members…) but we think an assassin is some James Bond guy who can oh, fire a pistol from the hip at a moving target 50 yards away and make a head shot every time…..yeah….next.
       
      Then this…
      “People preaching the 2nd amendment make me laugh since most only interpret the Bill of Rights and Constitution in a way that most suits them. Hell, most people dont even interpret (especially Tea Partiers) the 10th Amendment correctly.”
      It’s a fairly straightforward part of the  document sparky, it doesn’t NEED a lot of interpretation.  There aren’t a lot of words there to interpret.  If you need an interpreter, you’re part of the problem (that was signaled by your comment though, dead giveaway).
       
      And the thirty round clip, fine ban them (again) the only time I can forsee myself using a 30 round clip on a pistol is to defend my home from a hoard of intruders, in which case 30 round clips aren’t the real problem, are they.  If you think not having a 30 round clip would have made any difference to this whack job, again, you’re part of the problem.