Boehner sets 1000-foot perimeter around House to gun … legislation

posted at 9:30 am on January 12, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Don’t count the new leader of the House among supporters for Peter King’s new gun-restriction legislationThe Hill reports that John Boehner will oppose the bill, which creates a 1000-foot bubble around federal officeholders and judges in which gun possession would become a crime.  However, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is still reserving judgment (via Instapundit):

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.

Mike Lillis reports that even “ardent gun reformers” think this has no future, nor any other gun control legislation in this Congress.  Why?  They say it’s because the Republican majority and the gun lobby are too powerful.  If that’s true, why didn’t Democrats try to push something through in 2009?  They have dropped gun control not because of the “gun lobby” but because it’s tremendously unpopular with voters, a lesson they finally learned after Al Gore lost his home state in the 2000 presidential election.

In this case, it’s easy to see why.  King’s bill, promoted in response to the Tucson shootings, wouldn’t have prevented them at all, which even King acknowledges.  He says that the law might prompt police to check out people at rallies with suspicious bulges in their pockets, which I suspect they’d be inclined to do anyway at political events, assuming they’re present.  The lack of security at the Tucson event is a bigger issue, but even with a significant security presence, a determined attacker could reach his target before anyone knew he had a gun at a venue like a supermarket or other public-space event.   The only effect that King’s bill will have will be to criminalize the law-abiding who pose no threat while providing a false sense of security for the public officials it attempts to protect.

That’s true of most gun restrictions, which is why they’re so unpopular when put into practice.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

So the guy who is willing to break the law to murder a federal official is going to be deterred by another law that says he can’t bring a gun within 1000 feet of said official?

King is an idiot.

Cicero43 on January 12, 2011 at 11:00 AM

Uh, wrong. This would still violate the second amendment. The commerce clause of the constitution was written in the first draft of the constitution. The 2nd amendment amended that draft of the constitution and therefore supersedes anything the commerce clause can do by stating that the right to bear arms cannot be infringed. Therefore, the commerce clause cannot infringe on this right.

DoS_Conservative on January 12, 2011 at 10:55 AM

Well, you’re right that a law passed pursuant to the Commerce clause can’t violate an express constitutional provision like the 2nd amendment. But if it’s drafted well, I doubt this law would violate the 2nd amendment. From Scalia’s opinion in Heller:

[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms

crr6 on January 12, 2011 at 11:02 AM

A gunman opens fire killing and injuring numerous people. Does Congress care?

They first need to know, was a congressmen harmed or targeted?

Major Hassan opened fire and they ignored it. No moment of silence, no new laws, nothing. This time around, a member of congress was critically injured and so we get a moment of silence, new legislation, etc. Why is it that no one is talking about it? Are we to believe that here life was more important than the people killed at Fort Hood?

jeffn21 on January 12, 2011 at 10:52 AM

There were no ‘shout-outs’ at Obama’s presser either.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 12, 2011 at 11:04 AM

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

J_Crater on January 12, 2011 at 11:05 AM

So the guy who is willing to break the law to murder a federal official is going to be deterred by another law that says he can’t bring a gun within 1000 feet of said official?

King is an idiot.

Cicero43 on January 12, 2011 at 11:00 AM

The whole premise that we’re safer by removing weapons from society is no more effective than our parents making our childhoods more safe by telling us not to run with scissors.

I have more weapons than most small towns and there is not one aspect of societal harm I’m contributing to by owning them.

hawkdriver on January 12, 2011 at 11:05 AM

crr6 on January 12, 2011 at 11:02 AM

Were you addressing the “sensitive places”?

hawkdriver on January 12, 2011 at 11:06 AM

Law enforcement official to citizen within 1000 feet of Congressman, “Is that a gun in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?”

VBMax on January 12, 2011 at 11:07 AM

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

J_Crater on January 12, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Heh. Read the last paragraph of the wiki article:

Following the Lopez decision, Congress rewrote the law with the necessary interstate-commerce “hook” used in other Federal Gun Laws. The Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 is currently in effect and has been upheld by several United States Appellate Courts. None of the convictions occurring under the revised 1995 law have been overturned as a result of the Lopez decision.

crr6 on January 12, 2011 at 11:08 AM

What part of the proposed bill would allow him to say, “Why yes, now that I’ve adequately reviewed and actually read the legislation, I believe in increasing gun control legislation that actual criminals will ignore and law abiding citizens will obey garunteeing that if someone does start shooting there will be no one who can subdue the shooter.”

There are some things that should be easy to dismiss without delving in too deeply, or being so snarky.

DrAllecon on January 12, 2011 at 10:48 AM

Absolutely, just what part of a completely unworkable, unconstitutional bill does he think will become acceptable by a detail change here or a rhetorical nudge there? If someone came up with a bill to allow the eating of children would he claim to have to read it first before passing judgment? Not a good day for Cantor. I’ll file this away for future reference.

jnelchef on January 12, 2011 at 11:12 AM

crr6 on January 12, 2011 at 11:08 AM

I really don’t have much of a problem with an established area like a school. But again, we’re talking about a 1000 foot zone anywhere an elected official is. Not logistically possible without infringing on our 2nd Amendment rights. And if they think it’ll be okay to insure a home doesn’t have weapons in it when an elected official is in a public procession of some type in it’s vicinity, I can see where some people might be concerned with illegal search and seizure.

hawkdriver on January 12, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Were you addressing the “sensitive places”?

hawkdriver on January 12, 2011 at 11:06 AM

Yeah. After looking at the language I quoted above and one or two of the early district court interpretations of Heller, I think that ultimately the decision will only have the effect of invalidating complete gun bans (like the ones in DC and Chicago), and certain gun control laws that are very, very irrational. Most of the gun control laws will remain in place. Including laws like the one proposed by King.

crr6 on January 12, 2011 at 11:18 AM

So then the hero with the gun would get arrested and go to jail longer then the criminal with the gun.

Osis on January 12, 2011 at 11:20 AM

Heh. Read the last paragraph of the wiki article:

crr6 on January 12, 2011 at 11:08 AM

Heh, are you still pretending to be a Law-Student that can only seem to use “the wiki” as a reference source?

Chip on January 12, 2011 at 11:21 AM

hawkdriver on January 12, 2011 at 10:49 AM

Everytime I get a TFR notice, it’s always due to the Prez going to Camp David or some such. Bad enough, I can’t imagine doing the same thing for every travelling pol

bernzright777 on January 12, 2011 at 11:23 AM

O/T: Just read Sarah’s statement, and it sounds very Reaganesque. It won’t slow the left down a whit in their demonization of her.

silvernana on January 12, 2011 at 11:27 AM

Mike Lillis reports that even “ardent gun reformers” think this has no future, nor any other gun control legislation in this Congress. Why? They say it’s because the Republican majority and the gun lobby are too powerful. If that’s true, why didn’t Democrats try to push something through in 2009?

The Leftists must be cursing their luck that this tragedy didn’t happen when they could have used it to go after free-speech and guns…

Fake8 on January 12, 2011 at 11:28 AM

Why don’t they just pass a law to make it illegal to be a criminal? It would be just as effective as passing a law banning guns.

Oldnuke on January 12, 2011 at 11:28 AM

Whether it be a hand gun, a shoulder fired rocket, a hand grenade, an improvised bomb, a mini nuke, or a tire iron, making illegal and banning determined psycho paths with access to those resources won’t change their minds. Soon, every elected officials at every level will need expensive personal protection and new agencies to enforce these laws while doing nothing to actually stop them.

Egfrow on January 12, 2011 at 11:29 AM

O/T: Just read Sarah’s statement, and it sounds very Reaganesque. It won’t slow the left down a whit in their demonization of her.

silvernana on January 12, 2011 at 11:27 AM

Didn’t you hear about the new rules? We’re not supposed to defend ourselves anymore.

/sarc. (Yeah, like that’s necessary)

Chip on January 12, 2011 at 11:31 AM

They guy who did the shooting was a radical nutcase with mental problems — people like that or people who want to commit crimes are going to manage to get guns somehow so any new gun control law is worthless IMHO.

Figured Speaker Boehner would be saying NO!

PhiKapMom on January 12, 2011 at 11:39 AM

Let’s make mass murder illegal!

Akzed on January 12, 2011 at 11:39 AM

bernzright777 on January 12, 2011 at 11:23 AM

I’ve spent a night or two on standby close to P40. It’s the same effect but it’s really a Prohibited Area that increases in size when he’s there.

And Crr6, here’s the exact point. Most folks that fly certainly understand the point of keeping the president safe in this example. But he’s not just safe there, he has movement measures that are implemented to get to Camp David. If anything like this type of restriction were imposed for all elected officials for weapons, how would they enforce it?

hawkdriver on January 12, 2011 at 11:40 AM

We really do need a federal law requiring a waiting period, so that after an outrage like the shootings, no federal laws can be passed as a result of the incident for a period of 30 days. Panic makes bad law.

slickwillie2001 on January 12, 2011 at 11:48 AM

A Department of Congressional Security would solve the whole problem. Somebody hire 15,000 bureaucrats stat!

And then, of course, unionize.

nico on January 12, 2011 at 11:50 AM

We really do need a federal law requiring a waiting period, so that after an outrage like the shootings, no federal laws can be passed as a result of the incident for a period of 30 days. Panic makes bad law.

slickwillie2001 on January 12, 2011 at 11:48 AM

Nah, they can’t do that.

How would the Oppressive-left be able to Rahm anything through if it weren’t based on logic-defying emotionalism?

Chip on January 12, 2011 at 12:00 PM

Let’s make mass murder illegal!

Akzed on January 12, 2011 at 11:39 AM

I second that motion! But before I sign off on it completely I’d like to add an earmark to also make single murders illegal. We could get specific and add a rider that would make it illegal to murder someone within 1000 feet of a Safeway.

Oldnuke on January 12, 2011 at 12:02 PM

If a police officer checks my ‘suspicious bulge’ he is getting punched.

Pervert.

clement on January 12, 2011 at 12:02 PM

But…but…but..Ed, they’ll FEEL GOOD by passing such a stupid law.

The law should also require legislators to wear a flashing red light and siren on top of their heads. As they go about their daily business, outriders could hold poles that would mark the moving 1000 foot boundary.

And ammunition manufacturers could only produce cartridges with a range of 999 feet.

GarandFan on January 12, 2011 at 12:04 PM

ohn Boehner will oppose the bill, which creates a 1000-foot bubble around federal officeholders and judges in which gun possession would become a crime

Really? i know if i was crazy and going to shooot some politician. That that law would have stopped me in my tracks

Greed on January 12, 2011 at 12:18 PM

Criminals, and psychotic criminals especially, do not obey THE-LAW.

Making another LAW for criminals to ignore is a disservice to those alive and those who have been a victim of violent crime.

tx2654 on January 12, 2011 at 12:28 PM

Everytime I get a TFR notice, it’s always due to the Prez going to Camp David or some such. Bad enough, I can’t imagine doing the same thing for every travelling pol
bernzright777 on January 12, 2011 at 11:23 AM

What is a TFR notice?

karenhasfreedom on January 12, 2011 at 12:29 PM

What is a TFR notice?

karenhasfreedom on January 12, 2011 at 12:29 PM

Temporary Flight Restriction. We were trying to make an aviation comparison.

hawkdriver on January 12, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Because you see, EVERYONE knows when a federal office holder is around, because they are more important than you and I, and their aura just exudes “federal officeholder”.

I think states should cough up the bill for armed protection of their members of congress if they deem their representatives safety to be worth it. Otherwise, they need to fend for themselves.

scotash on January 12, 2011 at 12:40 PM

By its definition a criminal is someone who disobeys laws. You can have 1000 anti-gun laws and guess what, a criminal will disobey those laws.

It’s so simple even a caveman can understand, yet none of our elected officials seem to.

angryed on January 12, 2011 at 12:51 PM

The proper use for this POS gun legislation is to roll it up and stick it far up the author’s “where the sun don’t shine”.

Don’t forget to blacklist this clown’s staff for not standing up for the Constitution and common sense. Any staff with a backbone would have made a big stink about this idea — then resigned. Didn’t happen, so the problem goes deeper than a Congresscritter.

I’d also make sure this sort of clown and staff are on the short list for GOP idiots to take out next cycle if they don’t shape up real quick and run hard right — which could be pretty tough with that thing stuck up their hoo-hoo.

drfredc on January 12, 2011 at 1:37 PM

Umm … that headline is very confusing. I’m still not sure what it means.

j_galt on January 12, 2011 at 1:38 PM

ED – Your headline makes it look like Boehner is the one putting forth the 1000 ft. bill. You really need to change it! It’s very misleading!

Joy on January 12, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Umm … that headline is very confusing. I’m still not sure what it means.

j_galt on January 12, 2011 at 1:38 PM

It means Boehner’s not going to let that bill get anywhere near the floor.

Oldnuke on January 12, 2011 at 2:06 PM

I haven’t even seen anyone actually mention the fundamental reason why this legislation is ridiculous. In spirit, isn’t the concept of an armed public to combat enemies foreign and domestic?

What would be the purpose of being armed when some of the very people you are armed to defend against and/or indirectly intimidate are somehow able to exempt themselves?

Duh!

Levinite on January 12, 2011 at 2:13 PM

It would be encouraging if this were not a blind knee-jerk and the Rs were playing a little smart to bleed off the inevitable gun control frenzy after a tragedy like this. You never know. If not I’d be discouraged, having thought King was one of the good ones. Besides all the usually “Congress shall not infringe…” stuff, a law like this seems silly. Might as well propose a bill that says “It is against the law to commit a crime.”

curved space on January 12, 2011 at 2:17 PM

Stop this stupidity before it starts..It should never reach the floor.

JIMV on January 12, 2011 at 3:38 PM

I really don’t have much of a problem with an established area like a school. But again, we’re talking about a 1000 foot zone anywhere an elected official is. Not logistically possible without infringing on our 2nd Amendment rights. And if they think it’ll be okay to insure a home doesn’t have weapons in it when an elected official is in a public procession of some type in it’s vicinity, I can see where some people might be concerned with illegal search and seizure.

‘An established area like a school?’ So that more kids can be in a sitting duck zone like Columbine? All ‘no gun zones’ do is tell the criminal or the crazy where the easy victims are.

Just think about if the science teacher at Columbine had been armed when he saw the shooters in the hallway, none of the kids in the library would be dead.

Common Sense on January 12, 2011 at 3:40 PM

Perhaps they should read the Constitution on the floor of the House again.

SilentWatcher on January 12, 2011 at 4:14 PM

What a douche !
That didnt take long for him to prove himself a dumbass.

ColdWarrior57 on January 12, 2011 at 4:33 PM

Does this mean that James Webb can’t carry his six shooter in his briefcase when he goes through Congressional security?

HondaV65 on January 12, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Remember that before the 2008 election it was a run on guns and after it was a run on ammo… so if its guns now, expect ammo to be next in a few weeks.

I topped off with some 22lr plinking fuel and a couple of boxes of 45 ACP at Wallyworld… still well stocked with 30-06, 308, 45 ACP and lots of choices in 22 and 223. There never was a run on shotgun shells, though, always handy for the old A-5 and Mossy. Expect Glock and S&W to get some boost from this in sales…

ajacksonian on January 12, 2011 at 4:57 PM

Perhaps they should read the Constitution on the floor of the House again.

SilentWatcher on January 12, 2011 at 4:14 PM

It wouldn’t help. “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” is very unclear to people these days.

hawksruleva on January 12, 2011 at 4:58 PM

Just think about if the science teacher at Columbine had been armed when he saw the shooters in the hallway, none of the kids in the library would be dead.

Common Sense on January 12, 2011 at 3:40 PM

This science teacher thinks about this stuff quite a bit.
I have a large kinfe in my desk, plus I have some 10M HCL within reach.
An attacker entering my room is going to get stabbed while I throw acid in his face.

Badger40 on January 12, 2011 at 5:23 PM

Sanity. Thank you, Boehner. But we’re still watching your crybaby sleight of hand for backstabbing.

Western_Civ on January 12, 2011 at 5:24 PM

There is this thing, for lack of a better word, creeping into our society, this temptation to make these political leaders like emperors.
I remember a woman arrested by the Secret Service for just giving Bill Clinton the finger.

I read in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire that one of the Roman Emperors would walk the streets with his guards dressed in plain clothing.. he would then strike passerby’s at random just for fun and if they defended themselves, his guards would kill them immediately since it was against the law to strike an Emperor.

This was a horrible tragedy but a total of 6 people died. Many more wounded and we still don’t know to what degree some of their lives will be changed forever. But who is the only person that seems to be discussed? Who is the one person that is the center of the story…? The individual who is a member of congress and yet she’s alive and expected to make a pretty good recovery.
It’s just an observation nothing more. But everyone of those lives is precious and yet the media pays little attention to anyone but the member of congress. It’s almost like the others don’t really exist except to be used, lumped together, as a number or a backdrop to the real victim, congresswoman Giffords. (I want to make it clear here.. my comment is directed at the media and maybe society.. not at the congresswoman! Again, I realize she was the target. )

JellyToast on January 12, 2011 at 6:38 PM

Sure, ban guns.

Oh, and airplanes, fertilizer, and gasoline, because they’ve all been used in the largest spree killings we’ve had.

Idiots.

Merovign on January 12, 2011 at 7:35 PM

I hate it when people take things out of context:

[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms

What Scalia wrote:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

There is a big qualifying statement in the first sentence that has been omitted in the first quote block, as well as the omission of the “26″ at the end of that paragraph directing us to the following footnote:

26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

See where it says, “… presumptively lawful regulatory measures…? That word ‘presumptively’ says it all. Scalia and the four other Justices who concurred with his opinion are not saying those regulatory measures ARE lawful, they are identifying those regulatory measures as being only PRESUMPTIVELY lawful. Ergo, their constitutionality has neither been challenged nor confirmed.

There is no confirmation in DC v. Heller that any of those presumptively lawful regulatory measures – “reasonable restrictions” – are constitutional.

Woody

woodcdi on January 12, 2011 at 8:31 PM

BOEHNER has now crossed the Saturday Night Live threshold………STOP CRYING MR. SPEAKER!!

PappyD61 on January 12, 2011 at 9:46 PM

We really do need a federal law requiring a waiting period, so that after an outrage like the shootings, no federal laws can be passed as a result of the incident for a period of 30 days. Panic makes bad law.

slickwillie2001 on January 12, 2011 at 11:48 AM

Make it 30 months and you might really be on to something.

Slowburn on January 12, 2011 at 10:31 PM

Following the Lopez decision, Congress rewrote the law with the necessary interstate-commerce “hook” used in other Federal Gun Laws. The Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 is currently in effect and has been upheld by several United States Appellate Courts. None of the convictions occurring under the revised 1995 law have been overturned as a result of the Lopez decision.

crr6 on January 12, 2011 at 11:08 AM

You miss the point.

Has this law stopped even one school shooting?

And further, has it hindered law-abiding citizens from stopping school shootings?

Both answers are obvious – No.

Exactly the same as this proposed “bubble” law. All symbolism, no substance.

Squiggy on January 13, 2011 at 6:43 AM

BOEHNER has now crossed the Saturday Night Live threshold………STOP CRYING MR. SPEAKER!!

PappyD61 on January 12, 2011 at 9:46 PM

I didn’t know he was crying again. I would have to agree though, if he’s shedding tears again it’s too much. He can’t be seen out there crying all the time. It was moving when he got emotional election night. Understandable when they took over the House, but you’re right, he can’t be seen crying in front of the cameras all the time. His emotional state will start to be in question.

JellyToast on January 13, 2011 at 6:43 AM

So, while we argue over this and defend ourselves from the blame, how many executive orders and regulations are going to go through that will limit our free speech and gun rights?

mizflame98 on January 13, 2011 at 8:03 AM

So now the would be killer will know there is a 1000 foot gun-free zone around any official. What could go wrong?

abcurtis on January 13, 2011 at 12:02 PM

He can’t be seen out there crying all the time.

JellyToast on January 13, 2011 at 6:43 AM

I dunno – it worked for Bill Clinton.

abcurtis on January 13, 2011 at 12:03 PM

Following the Lopez decision, Congress rewrote the law with the necessary interstate-commerce “hook” used in other Federal Gun Laws. The Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 is currently in effect and has been upheld by several United States Appellate Courts. None of the convictions occurring under the revised 1995 law have been overturned as a result of the Lopez decision.

crr6 on January 12, 2011 at 11:08 AM

You miss the point.

Has this law stopped even one school shooting?

And further, has it hindered law-abiding citizens from stopping school shootings?

Both answers are obvious – No.

Exactly the same as this proposed “bubble” law. All symbolism, no substance.

Squiggy on January 13, 2011 at 6:43 AM

The answer to the first question is ‘no’, but the answer to the second question is ‘yes’. Though unarmed citizens can rush in and tackle, the law prohibits anyone from being armed and more effectively stop such a shooting. Those rushing in must wait for an opportune time such as during a reload, or during a distraction that may or may not occur, or risk being stopped with a bullet to the chest or head, making their attempt only and addition to the body count. While waiting for the opportune moment, people continue to get shot. One does not need to wait for an opportune moment to shoot back. You can shoot back from where you stand or from behind cover. The 1000 foot gun-free school zone law costs lives. It has saved NO lives.

Woody

woodcdi on January 13, 2011 at 12:18 PM

The answer to the first question is ‘no’, but the answer to the second question is ‘yes’. Though unarmed citizens can rush in and tackle, the law prohibits anyone from being armed and more effectively stop such a shooting.
woodcdi on January 13, 2011 at 12:18 PM

Can you provide an example of this occurring? A link to a reputable source would be preferable.

Thanks.

crr6 on January 13, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Can you provide an example of this occurring? A link to a reputable source would be preferable.

Thanks.

crr6 on January 13, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Absolutely. At Virginia Tech, no one was armed and Cho was able to kill something like 31 people. He ran out of victims before he ran out of ammo. There was no one armed there to stop him.

Those who tackled Loughner waited until he was reloading. While the killing in Tuscon happened in a place where carrying a gun is not illegal, no one in the immediate area was armed. Loughner was able to empty his first magazine before he was stopped.

At the shooting at Virginia Tech prior to the one involving Cho, two off duty cops attending class ran to their vehicles, retrieved their guns and stopped the shooter before he could do more killing. They might have been able to stop the assailant sooner had they been allowed to carry their guns with them into class before the shooting started.

This law did not stop any of those school shootings and in fact hindered their arrest. Though this law did not interfere with the shooting at Tuscon, the necessary action required to stop the shooter played out the same as if it were a class room because no one was armed. This proposed law by Rep King will have the same effect on elected members of government as the gun-free school zones has on students. It’ll make them preferred targets.

As for the reputable sources, you may seek out your own.

Woody

woodcdi on January 13, 2011 at 4:08 PM

woodcdi on January 13, 2011 at 4:08 PM

Woody, I was asking for a specific example of where the Gun Free School Zones Act cost lives, in order to substantiate your claim:

. The 1000 foot gun-free school zone law costs lives.

In order to do so, you’d need to prove that someone would otherwise have shot an assailant, but chose not to do so as a result of the Act. You have failed to provide such proof. Could you please do so?

Thanks.

crr6 on January 14, 2011 at 5:52 AM

In order to do so, you’d need to prove that someone would otherwise have shot an assailant, but chose not to do so as a result of the Act. You have failed to provide such proof. Could you please do so?

Thanks.

crr6 on January 14, 2011 at 5:52 AM

For all intents and purposes, you’re asking me to prove a negative. But, I’ll document here and now that had I been present at any one of those school shootings, I would have elected before entering such a school zone to be unarmed in compliance with the law. In effect, I would have chosen not to shoot by placing myself at the scene in an unarmed condition. So, in effect, I would have chosen not to shoot by choosing to be unarmed in accordance with the law. If that law did not exist, and had I been present at such an event, I would likely have fired upon the assailant.

You must accept that anyone who would normally have been able to shoot back if it weren’t for the law disarming them, were unable to shoot back as a direct result of the law.

I’m sure if you were to interview survivors of the Cho incident, you would be able to find the proof you seek. Unfortunately, the dead can’t answer directly, but I feel with all confidence that I can speak for at least one of those victims. One of those victims would have fired back given the opportunity. I can’t name him or her, but that doesn’t matter. I’ll bet if you were among the victims that day and had the opportunity that you would have fired back. However, if you are a law abiding citizen, you’d have been unarmed and wound up just as dead as the rest.

I would think the massacre at Virginia Tech is a definitive example of the gun free school zone act costing lives. On the flip side, you cannot prove otherwise.

Woody

woodcdi on January 14, 2011 at 6:50 PM

Comment pages: 1 2