• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

1000 Feet

range rat

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
334
Location
Cudahy, Wisconsin, USA
TheBlaze
The Stories
The Blog

(User Profile / Log Out) Sign In
Sign Up
Search
Politics GOP Rep. Will Introduce New Strict Gun Law
Posted on January 11, 2011 at 1:18pm by Jonathon M. Seidl
Print »
Email »
Tweet

A popular GOP congressman announced today that he will soon introduce gun control legislation that will make it illegal to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a federal official.

Rep. Peter King (R-NY), who has generally been supportive of gun control measures, announced the new legislation alongside strong anti-gun New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Not surprisingly, the legislation, which will be introduced in the upcoming weeks, got Bloomberg’s stamp of approval.

King’s office issued a statement about the bill, which reads in part:

Congressman Peter King today also announced that he will introduce legislation that will make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within 1,000 feet of the President, Vice President, Members of Congress or judges of the Federal Judiciary. In the United States, it is illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. Passing a similar law for government officials would give federal, state, and local law enforcement a better chance to intercept would-be shooters before they pull the trigger.

Bloomberg, the head of the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, applauded the measure, saying at a joint news conference the “system that’s supposed to protect us from dangerous and deranged people has failed.”

At that same news conference, King defended the bill, saying “The fact is they do represent the people who elect them, and it‘s essential if we’re going to continue to have contact that the public who is at these meetings are ensured of their own safety.”


According to him, the measure does not conflict with conservative views on gun laws.

“From a conservative perspective, we have to have a stable society, we have to keep crime down,” King said. “You cannot do that if the police cannot be assured that illegal guns are not on the street.”

“To have a stable society and a safe society, we have to remove illegal guns,” he continued.

But the main issue might be, if a gun is already “illegal” why would we need more legislation to outlaw it? For example, in many states, laws already prevent people from carrying a concealed weapon. And the other question is how would this legislation prevent a crazed gunman — who already has no respect for laws against murder — from doing exactly what Loughner did?

Despite the rhetoric of the news conference, all indications are that King’s legislation is not just aimed at illegal guns (that would be redundant). It seems to apply more to “legal” gun owners — those who have permits to carry a concealed weapon, or those who are more inclined to abide by the law.

Reports indicate that at least one such person was at the Tucson Safeway the day Rep. Gabriell Giffords was shot. Joe Zamudio is one of the men who helped subdue Tucson gunman Jared Loughner. Zamudio admitted he was carrying a concealed weapon at the time, and said he was seconds away from using it. Under King’s legislation, however, Zamudio’s gun would have been illegal.

Still, Bloomberg thinks the legislation does not infringe one’s right to keep and bear arms.

“That does not take away the First amendment, it protects it,” he said. “That does not take away the Second amendment, I think it protects it”

King is the same congressman who vowed to hold hearings on radical Islam, and currently chairs the House Homeland Security Committee. He said he expects the president’s support on the bill, which would specifically make it illegal to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of the president, vice president, members of Congress, or judges of the Federal Judiciary.

King isn’t the first legislator to vow more gun legislation. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) said they will soon introduce a measure to ban high-capacity gun clips (defined as more than 10 rounds).

UPDATE:

Initial attempts to contact King’s office for comment and clarification were unsuccessful.

Comments (494)
Comments Page 2 →


www.theblaze.com
 

jpm84092

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
1,066
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
George Orwell was right, but a few years off. 1984 is beginning to unfold here. The truth is fiction and fiction is truth.

Several federal legislators, both democrat and republican, have made public statements to the effect that since they have Concealed Firearm Permits in their home States, they are going to be carrying more often. Under this proposed legislation, we would see a lot of felon lawmakers as they carry within 1000 feet of themselves.
 

AaronS

Regular Member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
1,497
Location
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
We have come way to far to start listening to the "King" again.
The Department of Homeland Security, what a farce.
Thank God for the fine people of New York that keep this King in office (what are you people thinking?)...
I got a better idea. Tell this King to stay 1000 feet away from me! Better yet, tell him he is not welcome in the State of Wisconsin. -
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
I say we put tracking devices on all our lawmakers, local, state, and federal. Then we have a device to show where they are at all times. That should protect them! No one will hurt them at all! :rolleyes::banghead:
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
So, I go to Woodmans in Janesville and do some grocery shopping. Paul Ryan, who lives in Janesville, comes in to do some shopping as well. A couple scenarios. I notice him, do I have to go out to the parking lot and wait for him to leave? If so, what happens when he drives by me? I saw him, I am within 1000' and I am trying really hard to put some distance between us.

How stupid. :banghead:
 

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
Must be time to introduce a bill to keep anti-gun politicians 1000 ft from any firearm!

Well, many of them seem to do great harm to firearm ownership without being near them, well, excluding their security detail...
 

turbojohn41

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
67
Location
Oak Creek
So what are they going to do? After someone shoots them add a another charge? That will work well as usual The law abiding will disarm a nut will come to kill a important person and we will be sitting ducks. Where do these fools come from.
 

Flipper

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
1,140
Location
, Wisconsin, USA
How about a deal. 1000 feet from an announced location and time period where a pol is making a official public appearance, not including government buildings or other locations currently off limits to firearms.

In exchange: repeal of the gun free school zone law. Its been shown to be inefffective. Also an agreement that no additional firearm control laws will be introduced for a six year period.

No more giving into firearm controls without something in return.

This is not compromise, its reality.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
How about a deal. 1000 feet from an announced location and time period where a pol is making a official public appearance, not including government buildings or other locations currently off limits to firearms.

In exchange: repeal of the gun free school zone law. Its been shown to be inefffective. Also an agreement that no additional firearm control laws will be introduced for a six year period.

No more giving into firearm controls without something in return.

This is not compromise, its reality.

This would be unacceptable to me.
 

theoicarry

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
178
Location
baraboo, wisconsin
This very simple. All of the congress and so forth just need to pass a law, that States NO criminals with ill intent can come within 1000' feet of them at any given time. Simple...
 

gunguy2009

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
200
Location
Janesville, Wisconsin, USA
It will be just another ineffective law... It will prevent the law abiding from carrying while criminals carry where ever and when ever they want... "Passing a similar law for government officials would give federal, state, and local law enforcement a better chance to intercept would-be shooters before they pull the trigger.".... Come on now, Chances are he has the gun hidden and you arent gonna know its there until he/she starts shooting. These "1000 ft" laws are completely ineffective and only barring the good guys from protecting themselves and others.
 

theoicarry

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2010
Messages
178
Location
baraboo, wisconsin
Actually I was attempting to be sarcastic with regard to the stupid ideas some of our leaders have. No matter what kind of guns controls are put on those of us whom are honest hard working people, the criminals will always have the weapons. They can try to pass an 1000 foot gap,, those with ill intent are always going to be here, and that is why we need to protect our family, selves and friends if need be, or some old lady whom is being attacked by one of our so called citizens.
Myself and family have fallen victim to a house invasion, when the two were caught they both had guns and were previously convicted felons. Oh wait, felons are not supposed to be in possession of guns. This happened to us in March of 2005, and I do not plan on letting this happen again. As far as 911, what a joke. 45 minutes to get there.
 

Kelevra

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2010
Messages
69
Location
darkness
What a load of cr@p! Once again, dimwitted legislators with nothing better to do with their time, try to justify their existence by suggesting laws that only affect the law abiding. How about a law that forbids flaming liberal sheriffs from handing out leniency like skittles at a Unicorn rally.

This happened because of Sheriff Dopenick's liberal, backscratching ways. Did a favor for mom, add a dolop of liberal coddling and viola, a perfect storm of insanity ensues.

Do not accept compromise or the left will compromise you right out of your guns and knives eventually.

Stand your ground dangit!
 
Top