Republican Peter King To Introduce Legislation Banning Firearms Within 1,000 Feet Of A Government Official

71124705CS006_NYC_Police_CoWill it soon be a crime to be armed in the presence of a government official? A strict new gun-control measure is slated to be introduced in Congress by a surprising proponent, Huffington Post writes:

Rep. Peter King, a Republican from New York, is planning to introduce legislation that would make it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official, according to a person familiar with the congressman’s intentions.

King is chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. The proposed law follows the Saturday shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and a federal judge that left six dead, including the judge, and 14 wounded.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, one of the nation’s most outspoken gun-control advocates, is backing King’s measure and is expected to put the weight of his pro-gun-control organization behind it.

It is already illegal in the U.S. to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. King’s legislation to 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, would offer government officials the same protection.

38 Comments on "Republican Peter King To Introduce Legislation Banning Firearms Within 1,000 Feet Of A Government Official"

  1. Hadrian999 | Jan 11, 2011 at 7:18 pm |

    curious how this will work, can you be charged if you are licensed to carry and just happen to be near an official

  2. Hadrian999 | Jan 11, 2011 at 3:18 pm |

    curious how this will work, can you be charged if you are licensed to carry and just happen to be near an official

    • It does say “knowingly,” so you’ll be harassed and charged, but if you can afford a decent lawyer you’ll probably get off.

      Man, are the political reactions to this incident infuriating. It really shows what our politicians are all about. The only suggestion I’ve even heard that might have made a shred of difference in this case is McCarthy’s suggested reinstatement of the ban on extended magazines, though I’d rather not have someone who wants to ban things she doesn’t understand making my gun laws (she pushed a ban on barrel shrouds, and when asked what they were said “I believe their the shoulder thing that goes up.”)

      • I haven’t read into the proposed ban on extended magazines; would this make them entirely illegal or place further restrictions on their production? I could be wrong here, but wasn’t that already an illegal magazine to produce (but not to own)?

  3. Wouldn’t it be easier to ban politicians from going within 1000′ of a firearm?

  4. Marklar_Prime | Jan 11, 2011 at 3:27 pm |

    Wouldn’t it be easier to ban politicians from going within 1000′ of a firearm?

  5. It does say “knowingly,” so you’ll be harassed and charged, but if you can afford a decent lawyer you’ll probably get off.

    Man, are the political reactions to this incident infuriating. It really shows what our politicians are all about. The only suggestion I’ve even heard that might have made a shred of difference in this case is McCarthy’s suggested reinstatement of the ban on extended magazines, though I’d rather not have someone who wants to ban things she doesn’t understand making my gun laws (she pushed a ban on barrel shrouds, and when asked what they were said “I believe their the shoulder thing that goes up.”)

  6. emperorreagan | Jan 11, 2011 at 7:39 pm |

    As though someone intent on assassinating a public official is going to care about an extra charge for having a firearm within 1,000 feet of them…

  7. emperorreagan | Jan 11, 2011 at 3:39 pm |

    As though someone intent on assassinating a public official is going to care about an extra charge for having a firearm within 1,000 feet of them…

  8. and just like every other ‘gun free zone,’ the only citizen with a gun around a government official is the one intending to shoot a government official. Do they really think someone about to attempt murder cares that they’re breaking a gun law?

  9. and just like every other ‘gun free zone,’ the only citizen with a gun around a government official is the one intending to shoot a government official. Do they really think someone about to attempt murder cares that they’re breaking a gun law?

    • Hadrian999 | Jan 11, 2011 at 4:40 pm |

      pointless feel good legislation is easier than addressing the root causes of violence

      • I’m inclined to agree, though it does seem to violate common sense that people can show up to political rallies toting an M-16.

        • Hadrian999 | Jan 11, 2011 at 9:46 pm |

          maybe so, there is definitely an implied threat there but cracking down on things like that will have no effect on the lone nut or motivated assassin who is intent on racking up a body count. the guns dont kill people thing is cliche but true, without addressing the root causes of violence and conflict laws like this one are merely window dressing

  10. I haven’t read into the proposed ban on extended magazines; would this make them entirely illegal or place further restrictions on their production? I could be wrong here, but wasn’t that already an illegal magazine to produce (but not to own)?

  11. I’m not sure what I think about this. I mean of course it will not be effective and my guess is that this is the right trying to preempt other legislation, but none of that is fundamentally take issue. I dislike that we’re further extending privileges that do not exist to citizens to a special class; why is trying to kill a judge determined to have a higher gravity than trying to kill any other citizen?

    For the record, I’m not entirely certain I agree with the protections we’ve long afforded the president either.

  12. Hadrian999 | Jan 11, 2011 at 7:49 pm |

    it will be interesting to see what level of party support this guy gets next election

  13. I’m not sure what I think about this. I mean of course it will not be effective and my guess is that this is the right trying to preempt other legislation, but none of that is fundamentally take issue. I dislike that we’re further extending privileges that do not exist to citizens to a special class; why is trying to kill a judge determined to have a higher gravity than trying to kill any other citizen?

    For the record, I’m not entirely certain I agree with the protections we’ve long afforded the president either.

  14. Hadrian999 | Jan 11, 2011 at 3:49 pm |

    it will be interesting to see what level of party support this guy gets next election

  15. Hadrian999 | Jan 11, 2011 at 8:40 pm |

    pointless feel good legislation is easier than addressing the root causes of violence

  16. Gotta be a reverse op…a GOP flag waving nimrod comes up with a bill so pathetically inept and unenforceable that theres no way it will ever pass? Whatta ya wanna bet he’s out in front leading the charge directly into the mouth of the cannons…to ensure complete failure and eventual deadlock? This stinks of a set up.

  17. Gotta be a reverse op…a GOP flag waving nimrod comes up with a bill so pathetically inept and unenforceable that theres no way it will ever pass? Whatta ya wanna bet he’s out in front leading the charge directly into the mouth of the cannons…to ensure complete failure and eventual deadlock? This stinks of a set up.

  18. Hadrian999 | Jan 11, 2011 at 10:48 pm |

    so basically he wants to make it impossible for government officials who don’t merit official protection to have a private security detail.

  19. Hadrian999 | Jan 11, 2011 at 6:48 pm |

    so basically he wants to make it impossible for government officials who don’t merit official protection to have a private security detail.

  20. Simon Davies | Jan 11, 2011 at 10:49 pm |

    Wouldn’t it just be better if they extended this to ban to be: ‘no firearms within a 1000 feet of any human being’?

  21. Simon Davies | Jan 11, 2011 at 6:49 pm |

    Wouldn’t it just be better if they extended this to ban to be: ‘no firearms within a 1000 feet of any human being’?

  22. I’m inclined to agree, though it does seem to violate common sense that people can show up to political rallies toting an M-16.

  23. Hadrian999 | Jan 12, 2011 at 1:46 am |

    maybe so, there is definitely an implied threat there but cracking down on things like that will have no effect on the lone nut or motivated assassin who is intent on racking up a body count. the guns dont kill people thing is cliche but true, without addressing the root causes of violence and conflict laws like this one are merely window dressing

  24. I hope the NRA doesn’t find out.

  25. I hope the NRA doesn’t find out.

  26. Hadrian999 | Jan 12, 2011 at 6:43 am |

    wrong page

  27. Hadrian999 | Jan 12, 2011 at 2:43 am |

    wrong page

  28. Anonymous | Jan 12, 2011 at 10:47 pm |

    What a moron. How on earth does he think to enforce such a law? Oh wait, he doesn’t care about enforcement or paying for it for that matter. Would someone please lough this clown off his high horse?!

  29. SikterEfendi | Jan 12, 2011 at 6:47 pm |

    What a moron. How on earth does he think to enforce such a law? Oh wait, he doesn’t care about enforcement or paying for it for that matter. Would someone please lough this clown off his high horse?!

  30. Nedmorlef | Jan 13, 2011 at 6:46 am |

    how about a crackdown on corrupt public officials?

    if you politicians would try NOT pissing off the general public then, just maybe the citizenry will consider not taking shots at you.

  31. Nedmorlef | Jan 13, 2011 at 2:46 am |

    how about a crackdown on corrupt public officials?

    if you politicians would try NOT pissing off the general public then, just maybe the citizenry will consider not taking shots at you.

  32. only if it also applies to law enforcement also. no guns for a 1000″ feet period!

  33. only if it also applies to law enforcement also. no guns for a 1000″ feet period!

Comments are closed.