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

I would like to see the “tone” of the left in regards to this.

rob verdi on January 12, 2011 at 9:33 AM

This is a stupid law. How am I supposed to know if there is a federal official within 1000 feet of me?

ladyingray on January 12, 2011 at 9:34 AM

Good start, Congressman Boehner!

Y-not on January 12, 2011 at 9:35 AM

I hope Reid forces this issue.

Let’s see what Manchin and Tester do.

artist on January 12, 2011 at 9:35 AM

Fox & Friends reported today that guns have been flying off shelves in several states in the past few days–including AZ and Ohio.

BuckeyeSam on January 12, 2011 at 9:36 AM

1000 feet around each congressman? Like a rolling perimeter? That’s insane.

Paul-Cincy on January 12, 2011 at 9:36 AM

Eric Cantor is such a baby. He’s just waiting to see what everyone else does. I do not respect him.

anniekc on January 12, 2011 at 9:36 AM

might prompt police to check out people at rallies with suspicious bulges in their pockets

I’d be picked out of the crowd immediately if that were the case.

That’s right, ladies. *sniff*

Bishop on January 12, 2011 at 9:37 AM

It’s not a real tragedy unless Congress can pass some kind of law arguably in response to it.

AcidReflux on January 12, 2011 at 9:37 AM

Good on Boehner for rejecting the untargeted overreaction to this horrible event.

Even if the legislation passed the House, it’d die in the Senate. Manchin and other Red State Democrats can’t vote for it.

amerpundit on January 12, 2011 at 9:38 AM

We must surrender the granite foundations of our freedom in exchange for the wispy mirage of security. Sounds like a fair trade to me.

Extrafishy on January 12, 2011 at 9:38 AM

Another embarrassment from a New York politician. Go figure.

beatcanvas on January 12, 2011 at 9:39 AM

If Congresscritters want better ‘protection’ they could ask for some basic training on situational awareness of crowds so they can get a better feel for individuals within a crowd. There are plenty of FBI and military personnel who can do this and it is a low cost solution to a non-existant problem: this insane person would have gotten through no matter WHAT the law was.

If you want personal safety the place to start is not with laws or bodyguards or law enforcement officials but with yourself: if you are worried then address those worries and do something about them so YOU can protect yourself as YOU are always available and handy when YOU go someplace. Plus utilizing your own skills once you get them, is FREE.

Some basics in handgun carry and drawing from a holster might help, too… again your protection does not start at the outer perimeter but with that which you are protecting and you are your own best defense. Going through a good training course over a week or so might just shake up some preconceptions lawmakers have about individuals, weapons and the ability of anyone to stop those bent on murder.

ajacksonian on January 12, 2011 at 9:39 AM

That’s right, ladies. *sniff*

Bishop on January 12, 2011 at 9:37 AM

Dude, you are freaking incorrigible.

Extrafishy on January 12, 2011 at 9:40 AM

They’re using this murder to attack the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I wonder if they’ll get to the 3rd?

This could all have been avoided if we had a soldier quartered in everyone’s house…

zmdavid on January 12, 2011 at 9:40 AM

Fox & Friends reported today that guns have been flying off shelves in several states in the past few days–including AZ and Ohio.
BuckeyeSam on January 12, 2011 at 9:36 AM

But why, because sane Americans realize that government would do what they always do after an event like this, overreact? In light of King’s stupid idea I guess they were right, again.

I ordered a dozen magazines myself just two nights ago, basically because this isn’t over yet.

Bishop on January 12, 2011 at 9:40 AM

The wedge, beware the wedge.

OldEnglish on January 12, 2011 at 9:40 AM

No politicians s/b allowed to propose or pass any laws in this regard, for at least 6 months.

They are all schnapsed, from the left, to the right.

Schadenfreude on January 12, 2011 at 9:40 AM

Oh crap,now the TSA will get contracted out,
for perimeter searchs!!(sarc).

canopfor on January 12, 2011 at 9:41 AM

By the way, I see this item on Drudge:

Congress Job Approval Rebounds to 20%…

Boehner is doing the right things right.

beatcanvas on January 12, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Saw Lawrence O’Donnell interviewing the Pennsylvania congressman who wants to ban “symbols” and he cut him off with “Your bill’s not going anywhere” and he changed the topic. Enjoyable viewing.

Marcus on January 12, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Today should be D-Day, should be the day they vote to repeal HC. We are going to count the days from here.

*caveat* D-Day is a metaphor used to describe the day that the new congress hits the beach and begins to assault the liberal position politically. No connotation of the actual D-Day events is implied whatsoever.

ted c on January 12, 2011 at 9:41 AM

The wedge, beware the wedge.

OldEnglish on January 12, 2011 at 9:40 AM

OldEnglish:In so many ways,tru dat!:)

canopfor on January 12, 2011 at 9:41 AM

I’d be picked out of the crowd immediately if that were the case.

That’s right, ladies. *sniff*

Bishop on January 12, 2011 at 9:37 AM

heh! +

humble.

ted c on January 12, 2011 at 9:42 AM

Another embarrassment from a New York politician. Go figure.

beatcanvas on January 12, 2011 at 9:39 AM

King’s always been this way — Strong on certain things, like holding the upcoming hearings on Islamic terrorism despite being attacked by the left, but incredibly squishy on others, and (probably from being in the New York market), really weak on certain issues like gun control, where he’s one of the first to cave out of fear the NYC media spotlight might help take away his precious Nassau County seat in the next election.

jon1979 on January 12, 2011 at 9:43 AM

Good!

MeatHeadinCA on January 12, 2011 at 9:43 AM

There use to be a 1000 ft law around schools. SCOTUS rejected it. Why would SCOTUS approve this. Are we supposed to memorize the faces of all the federal judges and Pols which would be the only way we could know that they were around us and by the time we recognized them we would have committed a felony. If this law passes we need a law that makes them wear a giant scarlet P or J so we know they are out and about. Stupid is what Stupid Does. I vote that we build a 100 ft wall around DC with one entrance/exit and they are allowed out once a term. We can airlift basic food staples in weekly for them to feed on.

chemman on January 12, 2011 at 9:44 AM

Hey King: Guns don’t kill people…people kill people, you stupid idiot.

Rock on, Boehner.

search4truth on January 12, 2011 at 9:44 AM

Oh crap,now the TSA will get contracted out,
for perimeter searchs!!(sarc).

canopfor on January 12, 2011 at 9:41 AM

I heard Dupnik is being recruited for TSA.

MeatHeadinCA on January 12, 2011 at 9:44 AM

He says that the law might prompt police to check out people at rallies with suspicious bulges in their pockets

Would it be inappropriate to make a “Boehner mispronounced” joke right now?

amerpundit on January 12, 2011 at 9:44 AM

He says that the law might prompt police to check out people at rallies with suspicious bulges in their pockets

Is that a bulge in your pocket, or are you just…..

Vashta.Nerada on January 12, 2011 at 9:45 AM

check out people at rallies with suspicious bulges in their pockets

My fave quote!!! Is that a big bulge in your pocket, or are you just happy to see your Rep.?

search4truth on January 12, 2011 at 9:45 AM

amerpundit on January 12, 2011 at 9:38 AM

Think O-care.

chemman on January 12, 2011 at 9:47 AM

King’s bill, promoted in response to the Tucson shootings, wouldn’t have prevented them at all, which even King acknowledges.

But, he has no problem spending the time and money on this, and trying to impinge further on our rights.

Vashta.Nerada on January 12, 2011 at 9:47 AM

Great job,John,thank you for stepping up to the plate on this.

ohiobabe on January 12, 2011 at 9:47 AM

Thank you Speaker Boehner.

Inanemergencydial on January 12, 2011 at 9:47 AM

I don’t think Cantor is being a baby. I think he’s just trying to respect the process of the House.

JohnTant on January 12, 2011 at 9:48 AM

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

Excellent..Could not say it better..:)

Dire Straits on January 12, 2011 at 9:48 AM

Good for the Speaker. Cantor is not a leader. He should follow the Speaker’s lead or keep his mouth shut.

OT: Al Gore quit law school and won his House seat with less than 1/3 of the vote on the strength of his daddy’s name. He then won his Senate seat by pretending to be “moderate.” In fact, he used to refer to himself as a “raging moderate.” Once Tenneseans realized he had lied about being pro-life and that he was a gun grabbing environmental loon–in other words once they got to know him–he no longer had a chance here.

flyfisher on January 12, 2011 at 9:48 AM

I ordered a dozen magazines myself just two nights ago, basically because this isn’t over yet.

Bishop on January 12, 2011 at 9:40 AM

Bishop:Good gawd man,there are Rhetric Hate Speech
Police crawling all over the place in a Rh
etric Style Spanish Inquisition,and you are
mentioning magazines….btw,Field and Stream
I bet!(sarc):)

canopfor on January 12, 2011 at 9:49 AM

Enact the law, then make every federal office holder or high official wear one of those medieval Japanese battle flags that stick up 6 feet from their back, on it would be written “POLITICIAN – PLEASE STAY BACK”.

Bishop on January 12, 2011 at 9:49 AM

This is a stupid law. How am I supposed to know if there is a federal official within 1000 feet of me?

ladyingray on January 12, 2011 at 9:34 AM

Bingo

Gregor on January 12, 2011 at 9:49 AM

The moonbats at DU are laughing at the fact that a Republican is proposing a stupid gun control law. When those idiots start making more sense than your own guy, you’ve got a problem.

RadClown on January 12, 2011 at 9:50 AM

canopfor on January 12, 2011 at 9:41 AM
==========
I heard Dupnik is being recruited for TSA.

MeatHeadinCA on January 12, 2011 at 9:44 AM

MeatHeadinCA:D*mmitt,I knew it,haha!:)

canopfor on January 12, 2011 at 9:50 AM

The lack of security at the Tucson event is a bigger issue,

Did anyone suggest to Congress woman Giffords that she should hold an open public spaces meeting to meet constituents? Did anyone suggest to her that she would not need security, say the Sheriff of Pima County, who already knew of the threat to Ms. Gifford from Loughner? Has anyone asked Gifford’s staff if anyone asked either the Sheriff or Tucson City police for a security detail?

Skandia Recluse on January 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM

I heard Dupnik is being recruited for TSA.

MeatHeadinCA on January 12, 2011 at 9:44 AM

No way ..This guy is “Big Sis” material or a czar at the least..:)

Dire Straits on January 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM

MeatHeadinCA:D*mmitt,I knew it,haha!:)

canopfor on January 12, 2011 at 9:50 AM

Watch out for his bony left index finger.

MeatHeadinCA on January 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM

Cantor is such a twerp, I don’t trust him, he even makes Boehner look good.

Daemonocracy on January 12, 2011 at 9:54 AM

No way ..This guy is “Big Sis” material or a czar at the least..:)

Dire Straits on January 12, 2011 at 9:53 AM

Yeah, but he said he REALLY REALLY REALLY wants to grope America!

MeatHeadinCA on January 12, 2011 at 9:55 AM

might prompt police to check out people at rallies with suspicious bulges in their pockets

I’d be picked out of the crowd immediately if that were the case.

That’s right, ladies. *sniff*

Bishop on January 12, 2011 at 9:37 AM

Dude.

If the bulge is in your POCKET and not further down and a tad closer to your fly, then I’d see a doctor RIGHT NOW.

Either that, or reposition that Codpiece.

(just kidding!)

wearyman on January 12, 2011 at 9:55 AM

Cantor is such a twerp, I don’t trust him, he even makes Boehner look good.

Daemonocracy on January 12, 2011 at 9:54 AM

After seeing him and Laura Ingraham on the Factor … I agree.

MeatHeadinCA on January 12, 2011 at 9:56 AM

This is a stupid law. How am I supposed to know if there is a federal official within 1000 feet of me?

ladyingray on January 12, 2011 at 9:34 AM

when you’re arrested.

Daemonocracy on January 12, 2011 at 9:56 AM

Yeah, but he said he REALLY REALLY REALLY wants to grope America!

MeatHeadinCA on January 12, 2011 at 9:55 AM

LOL..:)

Dire Straits on January 12, 2011 at 9:56 AM

This could be another editorial maneuver by the writer of the article, but Cantor comes off as a snot here. Maybe he’s trying to jab the Democrats, but Boehner gets nicked in the process.

Some ideas for a bill are bad, and it’s okay to say “No.” Sheesh. At least Boehner is making some right choices.

conservative pilgrim on January 12, 2011 at 9:58 AM

Chris Matthews shouldn’t be concerned. No one would ever see him with a bulge in his pants. (Unless he starts fantasizing about his sweetie BHO)

50sGuy on January 12, 2011 at 9:59 AM

Figures, Bonners vs bulges…

anikol on January 12, 2011 at 9:59 AM

After seeing him and Laura Ingraham on the Factor … I agree.

MeatHeadinCA on January 12, 2011 at 9:56 AM

I missed that, i’ll have to hunt it down.

Hey I just clicked your link and requested to join your Facebook group, name is Brendan.

Daemonocracy on January 12, 2011 at 10:00 AM

This is a stupid law. How am I supposed to know if there is a federal official within 1000 feet of me?

ladyingray on January 12, 2011 at 9:34 AM

They’ll have to wear special hats or something like that. Or tee shirts that say something along the lines of: ‘Supported by your excessive federal taxes’ or ‘..proudly dependent on a broken system.’ or just ‘greedy’ if you want to keep it short.

jeanie on January 12, 2011 at 10:00 AM

If only AZ had had this law. JLL wouldn’t have taken that gun so close to federal officials.

/

mankai on January 12, 2011 at 10:00 AM

If the GOP drop the ball on this one they can whistle Dixie for my vote ever again. King is an complete failure and a RINO. Roll on 2012 to clean out the rest of the rino’s.

Eric support JB for goodness sake, grow some will ya.

Sandybourne on January 12, 2011 at 10:01 AM

King – the same King who made a career out of supporting the IRA Provos? Gotta laugh at this one.

Seth Halpern on January 12, 2011 at 10:02 AM

We have to stay on red alert for those crazy gun carrying folks, like this one.

It’s plain to see that they no control over their actions.

/heavy sarcasm, check out the link

GnuBreed on January 12, 2011 at 10:02 AM

This is a stupid law. How am I supposed to know if there is a federal official within 1000 feet of me?

ladyingray on January 12, 2011 at 9:34 AM

The stench of corruption is pretty easy to smell.

Badger40 on January 12, 2011 at 10:03 AM

They should put a 1000 foot perimeter around our wallets from these crooked jerks.

TexasJew on January 12, 2011 at 10:03 AM

GnuBreed on January 12, 2011 at 10:02 AM

I would really like to know why that guy wasn’t inspired by Loughlin to pull his own gun & blaze away?
Isn’t everyone with a gun a killer?/

Badger40 on January 12, 2011 at 10:04 AM

This is a stupid law. How am I supposed to know if there is a federal official within 1000 feet of me?

ladyingray on January 12, 2011 at 9:34 AM

They are the ones with an ego the size of a blimp. One can see that ego from miles around.

tjexcite on January 12, 2011 at 10:04 AM

I don’t even want to THINK about the totalitarian legal smack down we’d be getting if Pelosi were still in power.

Skywise on January 12, 2011 at 10:05 AM

Since the shooting, I’ve been reminded of the Kathy Lee South Park episode where Kathy Lee arrives in a protective bubble. It’s eerily similar though, given the last name…

The Pope bubble occurred to me as well… How long before some narcissistic Democrat shows up at a town hall in some sort of bullet-proof enclosure? Or decides to only do video-conferenced appearances? Or uses this as a reason to not meet with constituents any longer? For some, that would be nothing new…

BKeyser on January 12, 2011 at 10:11 AM

The whole idea is a farse, from beginning to end. Karl gives the idea a massive fisking.

SkinnerVic on January 12, 2011 at 10:13 AM

They should put a 1000 foot perimeter around our wallets from these crooked jerks.

TexasJew on January 12, 2011 at 10:03 AM

+14 trillion.

Inanemergencydial on January 12, 2011 at 10:13 AM

This is a stupid law. How am I supposed to know if there is a federal official within 1000 feet of me?

ladyingray on January 12, 2011 at 9:34 AM

Because you are supposed to worship them. I can’t believe you don’t know this.

DrMagnolias on January 12, 2011 at 10:15 AM

Jeez, is the best we can do.. Seriously, the establishment is broken.

Keemo on January 12, 2011 at 10:16 AM

Why only guns, why not all potential weapons and terrorists too.

In fact we could put a 10,000′ restriction zone around the United States and never have to worry about terrorist attacks again.

Bishop on January 12, 2011 at 10:20 AM

Seems Congress critters have a God complex.

SouthernGent on January 12, 2011 at 10:21 AM

Hey I just clicked your link and requested to join your Facebook group, name is Brendan.

Daemonocracy on January 12, 2011 at 10:00 AM

You DO NOT want to join that psychotic group of violent, tea-bagging, right-wing whack-jobs!
You should especially watch out for the one that calls itself ‘Barb’.
*wink*

annoyinglittletwerp on January 12, 2011 at 10:22 AM

As usual the law of unintended consequences is the *real* law of the land. While everyone knows this law would have done nothing to prevent the Tucson murders, it could very well be what prevents a similar such event in the future from being cut short by an armed citizen. Remember that during the VA Tech shootings there were multiple students who owned and carried firearms who reported having clear shots of the killer’s back early on in the spree. But it was a gun-free campus, so their weapons were in the car. Every death after that point should be on the hands of those who made VA Tech a gun free campus as much as it is on the psychopath who pulled the trigger.

SoRight on January 12, 2011 at 10:24 AM

Peter King has no business chairing the House Committee on Homeland Security. He proved himself mentally defective in the wake of the TSA controversy. But with his proposed bill he has really outdone himself. He’s dangerous and a disgrace to the GOP. I wonder if he would support disarming the IRA?

flyfisher on January 12, 2011 at 10:27 AM

If only AZ had had this law. JLL wouldn’t have taken that gun so close to federal officials.

/

mankai on January 12, 2011 at 10:00 AM

And also the cabby driver would be an accomplice to murder.

Electrongod on January 12, 2011 at 10:27 AM

Skywise on January 12, 2011 at 10:05 AMI don’t even want to THINK about the totalitarian legal smack down we’d be getting if Pelosi were still in power.

Oh yesssss! This blah, blah from people like Krugman has elements of truth. Yes, I am anti-government these days. They have intruded into my life and my pocketbook in ways and to an extent that I find unacceptable. Every where you turn there’s some new rule or regulation or bureaucracy demanding this paper work or these fees–and state government is not much better. I am finding government, as it’s evolving, stifling and over bearing. If this is to be construed as inciting unrest, it’s too late, the unrest is already there and it’s not the fault of pundits and the media, it’s the failings of government itself.

jeanie on January 12, 2011 at 10:28 AM

We are spending the day calling all congress critters on both sides and explaining politely that the king bill is NUTS.Only we can act fast enough to protect ourselves,loved ones,neighbors. 9 11 is to slow,and we can not have a cop on us all day.

Col.John Wm. Reed on January 12, 2011 at 10:31 AM

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 #1 reason for such laws is to give police another reason at probable cause. Take that for what it’s worth.

desertdweller on January 12, 2011 at 10:34 AM

This is a stupid law. How am I supposed to know if there is a federal official within 1000 feet of me?

ladyingray on January 12, 2011 at 9:34 AM

Presumably the statute will have a mens rea requirement, so the possession will only be illegal if you know you’re near a federal offical. E.g. “It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly possess a firearm within 1000 feet of a federal official.”

crr6 on January 12, 2011 at 10:36 AM

Bishop on January 12, 2011 at 9:40 AM

I was at Gander Mt just yesterday and it didn’t seem as bad as when Eric Holder first starting floating gun-control legislation in 09. I always gauge it by .223/5.56 availability and reloading supplies. Lots.

hawkdriver on January 12, 2011 at 10:36 AM

Don’t forget, back in January 2009, there was HR 45: Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, which went….nowhere. He could only get a few Dems to even sign on.

And in February of 2009, Obama looked to reinstate the sunset-ted assault weapons ban, which went….nowhere, despite a clear Dem majority in the House and Senate.

So, I blame Obama.

William Teach on January 12, 2011 at 10:36 AM

crr6 on January 12, 2011 at 10:36 AM

I might have said “bill”, because I don’t think it has a chance of becoming a statute.

hawkdriver on January 12, 2011 at 10:38 AM

So, I lose my rights wherever an official happens to wander? The next step would be to make all state and government workers fall under this provision and then they have effectively banned gun ownership. If you really wanted to start a revolution, I think that is the way to go about it…

rgranger on January 12, 2011 at 10:38 AM

That’s right, ladies. *sniff*

Bishop on January 12, 2011 at 9:37 AM

Reminded me of how Barney Fife used to brag … with the *sniff* at the end.

:)

Shambhala on January 12, 2011 at 10:38 AM

Reminded me of how Barney Fife used to brag … with the *sniff* at the end.

:)

Shambhala on January 12, 2011 at 10:38 AM

I never pictured Bishop as Barney Fife but now….

darwin-t on January 12, 2011 at 10:43 AM

I am not jumping for joy to quickly congratulating Boehner on not supporting this bill. I am happy he won’t support the bill, but I am wondering whether he will keep the promise of the rule that all bills must state constitutional authority before it will be brought to the floor for a vote.

Therefore, what would be Rep King’s constitutional case for this bill? He doesn’t have one since it is unconstitutional. So Boehner should never let it come to the floor for a vote. Boehner needs to be consistent with stupid unconstitutional bills from both sides of the aisle. If I see this, then I will congratulate Boehner.

DoS_Conservative on January 12, 2011 at 10:45 AM

There use to be a 1000 ft law around schools. SCOTUS rejected it. Why would SCOTUS approve this. Are we supposed to memorize the faces of all the federal judges and Pols which would be the only way we could know that they were around us and by the time we recognized them we would have committed a felony. If this law passes we need a law that makes them wear a giant scarlet P or J so we know they are out and about. Stupid is what Stupid Does. I vote that we build a 100 ft wall around DC with one entrance/exit and they are allowed out once a term. We can airlift basic food staples in weekly for them to feed on.

chemman on January 12, 2011 at 9:44 AM

I vote that we build a 100 ft wall around DC with one entrance/exit and they are allowed out in once a term for 1 day to pass any necessary law.

PrettyD_Vicious on January 12, 2011 at 10:45 AM

I’m still trying to parse how this does not get immediately rejected under that whole “Congress shall make no law…” thing. You’d think a Republican rep would get that, even if he is from NY. Am I missing something?

icallbs404 on January 12, 2011 at 10:46 AM

Therefore, what would be Rep King’s constitutional case for this bill?
DoS_Conservative on January 12, 2011 at 10:45 AM

Commerce clause FTW. Just include a “jurisdictional hook” in the statute (i.e. only criminalize possession of guns “affecting interstate commerce”) and it should be fine.

crr6 on January 12, 2011 at 10:47 AM

“Mr. Cantor believes it’s appropriate to adequately review and actually read legislation before forming an opinion about it,”

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

We have to stay on red alert for those crazy gun carrying folks, like this one.

It’s plain to see that they no control over their actions.

/heavy sarcasm, check out the link

GnuBreed on January 12, 2011 at 10:02 AM

Thanks GnuBreed. I did not know this, and it is IMPORTANT to know.

Shambhala on January 12, 2011 at 10:48 AM

So, I lose my rights wherever an official happens to wander? The next step would be to make all state and government workers fall under this provision and then they have effectively banned gun ownership. If you really wanted to start a revolution, I think that is the way to go about it…

rgranger on January 12, 2011 at 10:38 AM

In aviation there is what is known as a Temporary Flight Restriction, or TFR. These restricted areas are used for many things, not the least of which is keeping aircraft from flying within a prescribed distance when elected officials and VIPs are moving around the country or in a specific area. They can be implemented pretty quickly and it’s not hard to get in trouble penetrating them if you don’t check the sources at all or have the misfortune of heading someplace where you thought was clear, but have one pop up.

If this gun-control legislation had similar requirements during the movement of elected officials, I’m not sure how if could even be implemented.

hawkdriver on January 12, 2011 at 10:49 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

I’d prefer a law that requires political demagogues to stay 1000 feet away from a television camera.

glockomatic on January 12, 2011 at 10:53 AM

Shambhala on January 12, 2011 at 10:38 AM

Hey, the first to make the connection, you win the large stuffed animal.

I suppose I could have added *hitches up pants* for the complete picture.

Bishop on January 12, 2011 at 10:54 AM

Commerce clause FTW. Just include a “jurisdictional hook” in the statute (i.e. only criminalize possession of guns “affecting interstate commerce”) and it should be fine.

crr6 on January 12, 2011 at 10:47 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.

With your logic, I could still count black people as 3/5 of a person because it is in the main body of the constitution, regardless of what the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments state.

Sorry, your argument does not hold constitutional mustard.

DoS_Conservative on January 12, 2011 at 10:55 AM

I was at Gander Mt just yesterday and it didn’t seem as bad as when Eric Holder first starting floating gun-control legislation in 09. I always gauge it by .223/5.56 availability and reloading supplies. Lots.
hawkdriver on January 12, 2011 at 10:36 AM

Might have something to do with the Iraq fighting winding down, maybe maybe.

3 billion rounds of ammunition were bought by American citizens in the last three months of 2009, and enough small arms to equip the entire Chinese and Indian armies combined. I’ll be interested to see the 2010 numbers.

Bishop on January 12, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Comment pages: 1 2