As Democratic and Republican members rush to line up with new bills to restrict speech or guns after the Tucson massacre, Rep. Peter King once again will not be outdone in criminalizing conduct. He is reportedly planning to introduce a bill that would 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. This, of course, raises the problem with politicians being mobile. In states allowing concealed weapons, the appearance of any federal official or judge would require a fast estimation of 1,000 feet to avoid criminal charges.
However, Rep. Louie Gohmert is about to introduce legislation to allow members to carry guns in Congress. Thus, armed members could move around in a 1000 gun-free zone except for the one that they are carrying.
For his part, Rep. Dan Burton wants the entire House chamber encased in Plexiglas to protect members from the public. No one has suggested encasing members in Plexiglas to combine both concepts.
Once again, a tragedy has led to impulse buy legislation with little concern for the impact on the Constitution or our political system.
Having federal officials move around in a 1000 foot protected zone is appealing until you consider the legal and practical problems. Under this logic, an official walking toward a person with a legally permitted gun would require the citizen to flee the moving protected zone. Analogies to schools (which are often the subject to such limitations) are not very helpful since they tend to stay put and are immediately recognizable.
The only positive aspect to this proposal would be the scene of a campaigning member walking into a gun show to see the pandemonium.
Source: Politico
Jonathan Turley
I wonder, if the chambers of Congress were enclosed with plexiglass as Mr. Burton wants and if the House plumbing backed-up and flooed the encased House floors , would that be the Bay of Pigs all over again…
I prefer my idea of encasing members of Congress in Plexiglass in order to protect the public from THEM.
Git out yer measuring tapes folks–things is gittin’ serious!
Rich,
You have an excellent question about King’s real rationale. I know Speaker Boehner has already stated that King’s bill won’t be brought up for a vote so you could be correct.
Given King’s wingnut bonafides, I wonder if this is serious or a poison pill to forestall more practical gun control measures.
Interesting info Swarthmore Mom. That would explain a lot.
‘Fesser T writ this wit:
“No one has suggested encasing members in Plexiglas to combine both concepts.”
____________
Well Sir, that aint sich a fer stretch. All them congress members I seen already look like and act like wax museum manikuns anywayz.
King is also afraid of getting redistricted into the same district as pro control advocate Carolyn McCarthy. He is probably laying the groundwork as it is quite probable that it will happen.
Former Fed,
I think you are right about the name. Another possible name choice would be OK Corral, or The Alamo.
With all of these conflicting and confusing laws, sich as Gohmert’s et el, intended to protect members of Congress from themselves, I think the deadly result of congress folks a’ shootin’ each other–besides in their own foots–will require the introduction of a new Bill promulgatin’ a name change from:
Capitol Hill to Boot Hill….
___________
(That is, if’n theyz a *quarrelm* left to have a minimum number of votes to pass the measure)
Regarding “This, of course, raises the problem with politicians being mobile. In states allowing concealed weapons, the appearance of any federal official or judge would require a fast estimation of 1,000 feet to avoid criminal charges.”
Can I offer a surely inflammatory solution? Why not leave your gun at home? Better still, introduce very strict gun laws (Europe anybody?) and make owning a (semi)automatic weapon illegal at all times.
Cheers.
Savaship,
“Wouldn’t it work to make every act of gun violence unstoppable by law abiding citizens within 1000 feet of a representative?”
The people that stopped the shooter on Sat. were all armed?
Don’t get me wrong this is a stupid law. That’s just not the reason why.
What are King and Gohmert worried about, they are only shooting at Dems, aren’t they?
I’ve checked and I believe the correct order of his names are “King, Representative (of) Peter.”
“The only positive aspect to this proposal would be the scene of a campaigning member walking into a gun show to see the pandemonium.”
_______________
Gotta appreciate Prof. T’s wit and humor. I have never been to a gun show but I sure would like to view an event as just described.
What a ridiculous proposal. No criminal with a gun is going to care how many feet he is to his target. Fire that guy now!
That proposed legislation is awesomely well thought out
Here are my knee-jerk questions about this legislation:
So what that representative wants, is only for criminals intent on breaking laws to knowingly carry a gun within 1000 feet of them? How would this have stopped the shooting in Arizona? Wouldn’t it work to make every act of gun violence unstoppable by law abiding citizens within 1000 feet of a representative?
Doesn’t this violate the constitutional principle of equity amongst Americans? Doesn’t this prove that representatives are a ruling class, making America an oligarchy, and no longer a republic? Can I have legislation that keeps armed government officials 1000 feet away from me?
Good points all, Professor. Such a protection would also have the effect of making our legislators less likely to pass sensible gun restriction safety laws for the expendables, ie, rest of us.
Seconded.
If there are any measures we could take to keep lobbyists away from members of Congress, I’d be in favor of them!