Peter King (R-NY) to introduce gun control law

  • News
  • Thread starter turbo
  • Start date
  • #1
turbo
Gold Member
3,228
55
King wants to make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within 1000 feet of an elected federal official or judge. What's his point? If some lunatic wants to shoot a Congressman, will he be deterred by such a law? I simply don't see how such a law would give additional protection to public servants unless law-enforcement can set up 2000-foot diameter perimeters around politicians and search everybody inside it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/peter-king-strict-gun-control_n_807323.html
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Hepth
Gold Member
460
39
Perhaps they could when politicians are giving public addresses, say at a park. Maybe they wouldn't set up checkpoints, but if they see someone has a holster it'll give them the right to remove them from the demonstration? But I feel like they probably already could have done that.

Does that mean that if you're in Walmart and a Congressman that you recognize walks in, you have to leave?
 
  • #3
turbo
Gold Member
3,228
55
Perhaps they could when politicians are giving public addresses, say at a park. Maybe they wouldn't set up checkpoints, but if they see someone has a holster it'll give them the right to remove them from the demonstration? But I feel like they probably already could have done that.

Does that mean that if you're in Walmart and a Congressman that you recognize walks in, you have to leave?
Your first example is one to which such a law may be applicable. Your last is a good example of the weakness of such a blanket ban. I see some serious faults with the premise of King's proposed law, and wonder how the draft can be worded to avoid unreasonable search and seizure for anybody that finds themselves in the presence of a judge or an elected official.

For instance, if one of my Senators bought the property next door, would I be in violation of Federal law because I kept pistols for home-defense?
 
  • #4
This would further isolate elected officials from their constiguents. Basically saying that a sane, lawful, permit holding, FBI checked (though this needs to be looked at), is not welcome near an elected official. Knee-jerk reaction to a pscho. These guys are out of touch IMO.
 
  • #5
turbo
Gold Member
3,228
55
This would further isolate elected officials from their constiguents. Basically saying that a sane, lawful, permit holding, FBI checked (though this needs to be looked at), is not welcome near an elected official. Knee-jerk reaction to a pscho. These guys are out of touch IMO.
I agree. I think King's announcement is timed to take advantage of current events, and can't be taken seriously. Unless he's willing to put a lot of caveats and exceptions in his ban, it will be unenforceable. Plus, it would make criminals (Federal law, no less) out of ordinary citizens that ran afoul of it.
 
  • #6
JaredJames
2,817
22
Despite my views on the subject, I can see this law won't be very productive.

Let's face it, if you really wanted to get away with it I'm sure the nutters out there will find a way.

Although I would like to see someone prove they didn't know they were carrying.
 
  • #7
Proton Soup
214
1
how do you know if you're within a 1000 ft? carry a scope?
 
  • #8
Despite my views on the subject, I can see this law won't be very productive.

Let's face it, if you really wanted to get away with it I'm sure the nutters out there will find a way.

Although I would like to see someone prove they didn't know they were carrying.

It wouldn't be productive at all.

Are they going to search everyone within the radius? If not, any psycho that has the intent to harm isn't going to care what the restrictions are. Making such a law only makes those who are regular joes criminals, or simply not welcome to be around those he/she elected.
 
  • #9
how do you know if you're within a 1000 ft? carry a scope?

LOL! I was thinking the same thing.
 
  • #10
JaredJames
2,817
22
Surely such a law would just inspire more hardcore snipers?

Is 1000ft really that far a shot?
 
  • #11
Surely such a law would just inspire more hardcore snipers?

Is 1000ft really that far a shot?

333yards is within hunting rifle range. It would require a respectable marksmen.
 
  • #12
turbo
Gold Member
3,228
55
I can't get my head around King's thought-process. If some kook wants to shoot his Congressman, will he think "but I can't do that because if I do, they can charge me for being within 1000 ft of him with a gun"? What a deterrent!!! (Not.)

"They could tack another 20 years on my life-sentence." Hmmm
 
Last edited:
  • #13
What effect would this law have? No law abiding citizen at a town hall meeting would be "packing". The small but real chance that a law abiding citizen could put an end to an assassin would be eliminated. Too bad nobody was carrying at the Safeway parking lot.

Skippy

PS Another unintended consequence: Parking lots at political meetings would be a good place to steal guns. The law abiding citizens will put them under the seat or in the glove box.
 
  • #14
Jimmy Snyder
1,095
19
It should be no nut cases within 1000 feet of a politician. No wait, that would be logically inconsistent. Hey wait again, maybe it's a good idea after all.
 
  • #15
Evo
Mentor
23,923
3,251
I can't get my head around King's thought-process. If some kook wants to shoot his Congressman, will he think "but I can't do that because if I do, they can charge me for being within 1000 ft of him with a gun"? What a deterrent!!! (Not.)

"They could tack another 20 years on my life-sentence." Hmmm
I don't think the point would be to be a deterrent, but to make it ok for police to arrest anyone seen with a gun.

But, I don't see the point, someone determined to shoot a politician probably isn't going to be milling around waving a gun. I also don't think politicians are more of a target for nuts than anyone else in the public eye. Celebrities get attacked, that's why many have body guards.
 
  • #16
czelaya
43
5
I'm just so appalled that he thinks that there should be specials laws enacted to protect government officials. The way I see it, there no better than anyone else. No person's life is better than any others.

As usual, politicians wanting special protections & privileges for themselves.

I'm still trying to understand why government representatives can bypass airport security.
 
  • #17
JaredJames
2,817
22
Well, if I go to America and shoot some random person it won't be treated the same as me going to America and shooting Obama (or any high government person).

If bypassing airport security gets you czelaya, think about diplomatic immunity.
 
  • #18
What effect would this law have? No law abiding citizen at a town hall meeting would be "packing".

I don't attend town hall meetings but if I did I'd have no problem "packing". I "pack" pretty much everywhere it's legal. As well as do numerous other people. Just so happened noone was "packing" at the beginning of this particular meeting. Had there been, things might have turned out a lot differently.

Regardless, this is a bogus knee-jerk reaction that is getting this guy some PC PR.
 
  • #19
JaredJames
2,817
22
Had there been, things might have turned out a lot differently.

This is something I'm not so sure about. For one, I see the potential for it to backfire onto you being quite high - who would risk it? Would anyone be confident enough? I just can't see it myself. (I'm talking about private citizens not people with some form of training in the area.)
 
  • #20
This is something I'm not so sure about. For one, I see the potential for it to backfire onto you being quite high - who would risk it? Would anyone be confident enough? I just can't see it myself. (I'm talking about private citizens not people with some form of training in the area.)

It's really not worth speculating about. I just know that if I hear shots fired while I'm armed I'm going react in a defensive manner. And there are plenty of private citizens out there that are more trained than I.
 
  • #21
Evo
Mentor
23,923
3,251
It's really not worth speculating about. I just know that if I hear shots fired while I'm armed I'm going react in a defensive manner. And there are plenty of private citizens out there that are more trained than I.
I would hate to be caught between two shooters. Civilians should not be carrying and firing weapons in public. You can disagree all you want, it's not safe, IMO.
 
  • #22
Proton Soup
214
1
i think the point of the law would be to protect politicians from sane, rational people.
 
  • #23
I would hate to be caught between two shooters. Civilians should not be carrying and firing weapons in public. You can disagree all you want, it's not safe, IMO.

If they are adequately trained, it's not much different than an off duty police officer. But, yeah, you don't want some yahoo going rambo during something like that.
 
  • #24
I would hate to be caught between two shooters. Civilians should not be carrying and firing weapons in public. You can disagree all you want, it's not safe, IMO.

Is it safer to allow one shooter to keep shooting with no resistance until the police arrive? Then who's to say you wont get caught in between the cops and the shooter?
 
  • #25
Evo
Mentor
23,923
3,251
Is it safer to allow one shooter to keep shooting with no resistance until the police arrive? Then who's to say you wont get caught in between the cops and the shooter?
The cops are better trained and aren't just firing out of fear. My preference would be that there were no guns in the first place.

Lets say you've got one crazy gunman and two bystanders with guns, bystander #1 whips out a gun and starts firing in response to crazy gunman, bystander #2 sees bystander #1 shooting, assumes he's in cahoots with crazy gunman and shoots bystander #1. Police show up, see bystander #2 shooting and they kill him. Crazy gunman gets away in the confusion.
 
  • #26
turbo
Gold Member
3,228
55
And that's a problem. Pull a gun to shoot crazy gunman, and an off-duty cop might take you for an accomplice. Messy.
 
  • #27
And that's a problem. Pull a gun to shoot crazy gunman, and an off-duty cop might take you for an accomplice. Messy.

Yeah, I'm scheduled for 40hrs of training in June. I'm going to ask about that. This is something I've thought a lot about. Other than being better looking, how do I make sure I'm not mistaken for the perp?
 
  • #28
JaredJames
2,817
22
And that's a problem. Pull a gun to shoot crazy gunman, and an off-duty cop might take you for an accomplice. Messy.

And that is the exact problem I was thinking of.
how do I make sure I'm not mistaken for the perp?

You don't. And that's where my problem lies.

It's the cops judgement. In the case of a mass shooting like this, everyone shooting is a viable target. If the cop makes a mistake, which isn't something I'd find hard to believe would happen, you get put down.
 
  • #29
turbo
Gold Member
3,228
55
A close friend of mine was the chief of the Maine warden service, and when he was off-duty, he was always carrying. Law-enforcement officers are trained to evaluate situations quickly, but they can't be expected to be 100% accurate and accidents are bound to happen when citizens try to jump into a dangerous situation with their own gun.
 
  • #30
Bystander
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
5,390
1,470
i think the point of the law would be to protect politicians from sane, rational people.

Counting school "boars," city "clowncils," county "comedians," state "laughislatures," "clowngress," clerks & recorders, DAs, sheriffs, regents, their appointees, staffs, aides, ad nauseum, plus their opponents in the public arena, it ain't all that unreasonable to say that there are in the neighborhood of a million professional politicians running around loose in this country; the murder rate is down lately to 5 per 100k population, so we could expect 50 murders of political figures per year on a statistical basis. The U.S. House of Reprehensibles (ins, outs, wannabes) is a pool of 1500-2000 potential victims --- and at 5 per 100k we expect a murder every 10-15 years. Haven't seen it.

A law protecting politicians from the electorate is more to protect the politicians' self-images as being important enough to be worth shooting.
 
  • #31
JaredJames
2,817
22
I recommend you look up what a politician is, Bystander.

All of those 'examples' you gave certainly aren't politicians.
 
  • #32
AlephZero
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
7,025
297
Is it safer to allow one shooter to keep shooting with no resistance until the police arrive? Then who's to say you wont get caught in between the cops and the shooter?

You can always invent a different story that would have given a better result with hindsight. Unfortunately, you don't have the hindsight until after the reality is over.

With no disrespect to some other posters on this topic, I find it hard to see how having several members of the public (even of they are war vets) joining in a free-fire shootout is INTRINSICALLY safer than having one nutcase shooting till he/she runs out of bullets.
 
  • #33
AlephZero
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
7,025
297
The U.S. House of Reprehensibles (ins, outs, wannabes) is a pool of 1500-2000 potential victims --- and at 5 per 100k we expect a murder every 10-15 years. Haven't seen it.

Whatever their political ability or lack of it, it should be obvious that anyone who is a Rep is not living an "average" US lifestyle, or spending most of their time in the situations where the "average" US citizen gets shot.

Therefore, your attempt at statistics is invalid.
 
  • #34
The cops are better trained and aren't just firing out of fear. My preference would be that there were no guns in the first place.

Lets say you've got one crazy gunman and two bystanders with guns, bystander #1 whips out a gun and starts firing in response to crazy gunman, bystander #2 sees bystander #1 shooting, assumes he's in cahoots with crazy gunman and shoots bystander #1. Police show up, see bystander #2 shooting and they kill him. Crazy gunman gets away in the confusion.

You would hope so, but that isnt always the case. Cops are human and are fallible, just because they have training doesnt mean that they now infallible. Are cops trained with live rounds firing back at them during target practice? How do we know they wont be afraid when confronted with that? I dont think the fear would go away even if they did. Just google police kill innocent bystander and you will see numerous instances.
Cops do get more training than the average citizen, plus alot of police are ex military but there are also lots of ex military who are not cops but are just average citizens now. There are also loads of citizens who were raised with guns and have spent their whole life shooting, some cops never even picked up a gun until they went through the academy, and are far less trained than those average citizens. On top of that we have no right to be protected by the police, so citizens should be able to protect themselves.

Are we going to play the what if game now? What if bystander shoots the culprit in the head and no one else dies? What if even though cops show up and shoot the bystander, the culprit is already dead and ten, twenty, thirty other people were saved by his/her actions? What if .....,. We cant live our lives by what ifs, or we would have no liberty whatsoever, imo.
 
  • #35
Evo
Mentor
23,923
3,251
Are we going to play the what if game now? What if bystander shoots the culprit in the head and no one else dies? What if even though cops show up and shoot the bystander, the culprit is already dead and ten, twenty, thirty other people were saved by his/her actions? What if .....,. We cant live our lives by what ifs, or we would have no liberty whatsoever, imo.
Well, you asked
jasongreat said:
Is it safer to allow one shooter to keep shooting with no resistance until the police arrive? Then who's to say you wont get caught in between the cops and the shooter?
Given a "what if" situation, I'll take no other shooters, easy answer.
 

Suggested for: Peter King (R-NY) to introduce gun control law

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
453
Replies
18
Views
494
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
630
Replies
14
Views
866
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
697
Replies
19
Views
954
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
834
Replies
11
Views
632
  • Last Post
13
Replies
444
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
930
Top