Rep. King (R-NY) to Introduce Bill Banning Guns Within 1,000 Feet of Government Officials

Representative Peter King (R-NY) is considering introducing a bill that will ban guns within 1,000 feet of any government official. That will include any federal members of Congress, governors, or any federal judge:

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 Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and a federal judge that left six dead, including the judge, and 14 wounded...

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.

This law could be very problematic for various reasons. Ed Morrissey of HotAir broke it down perfectly on why this could cause more problems than it would solve:

There are two questions involved in any gun-control legislation, the first of which is whether it will be constitutional, and the second of which is whether it will do any good. Let’s take those in order. Courts have thus far upheld reasonable restrictions on where guns may and may not be carried, such as courthouses and in the vicinity of schools. However, those are fixed locations, not mobile personnel, locations for which a court could reasonably expect most people to know.  If one carries a gun legally to a public place without knowledge of the presence of a judge or member of Congress, then an arrest would pobably be unreasonable (although courts might end up ruling otherwise). And if an arrest without any kind of attempt to initiate an assault is considered unreasonable, then the law is superfluous, since the attempt itself would be illegal already.

Some may also argue that an attempt to create a special class of protected people in this law might also fail to pass constitutional muster  I’d say a court would take a long look at whether Congress has a compelling state interest in passing such legislation, at least on that point, and wouldn’t bet that they’d rule no. A better question might be jurisdiction, where the law would create a mandate on state and local police to enforce federal law. The Obama administration just got done arguing in federal court that Arizona should be constrained from enforcing federal immigration law, to which the district court agreed. Would states not have an argument in the other direction in the case of this law?

Next, let’s look at its effectiveness  Would such a law work in the sense that it would make these protected classes more safe?  Such a law would not have stopped the shooting in Tucson. Had anyone in law enforcement seen the pistol in Jared Lee Loughner’s hands, they almost certainly would have reacted to it immediately by detaining him even without the federal law  Depending on the circumstances, they may not have been able to prosecute him under existing state law, but perhaps they could have confiscated his gun and revoked his permit after discovering just how insane he was and the evidence of his grudge against Giffords. Of course, the sheriff’s department in Tucson already knew of Loughner and hadn’t done much about it, but that won’t change under King’s proposed law, either.

King’s effort is of questionable constitutional and operational merit at best. It seems like another example of my axiom, Legislate in haste, repent at leisure.  Rather than issue knee-jerk proposals to change the law, let’s see where the evidence leads us in this case to determine how best to protect everyone from lunatics like Loughner.

Given that the Republicans control the House and could easily block it in the Senate, I doubt that this will go anywhere. This is just a knee-jerk reaction to the shooting out of fear or grief. In the end, cooler heads will prevail, and this bill should die a quick and quiet death.

Security around government should probably be strengthened, but this law wouldn't stop another attack from happening.

Justice Breyer: You Know Who Would Vote For Restricting Guns...The Founding Fathers

Supreme Court Justice made some startling assumptions regarding the origination and modern-day implementation of the second amendment in an interview on Fox News Sunday

If you look at the values and the historical record, you will see that the Founding Fathers never intended guns to go unregulated, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer contended Sunday.

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Breyer said history stands with the dissenters in the court's decision to overturn a Washington, D.C., handgun ban in the 2008 case "D.C. v. Heller." 

Breyer wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He said historians would side with him in the case because they have concluded that Founding Father James Madison was more worried that the Constitution may not be ratified than he was about granting individuals the right to bear arms. 

Madison "was worried about opponents who would think Congress would call up state militias and nationalize them. 'That can't happen,' said Madison," said Breyer, adding that historians characterize Madison's priority as, "I've got to get this document ratified."

Therefore, Madison included the Second Amendment to appease the states, Breyer said.

That's a mighty big assumption. However, it seems that Justice Breyer only did a half-ass job at doing his homework, when he did his seance and found out what James Madison was thinking over 200 years ago. Ed Morrissey of HotAir found something that was, actually, written by Madison in the Federalist Papers, Federalist 46:

Madison also considered the right to bear arms an important check on federal power, too, and didn’t reluctantly come to that position to appease the states into signing the Constitution.  All Breyer needed to do to discover this was actually read Madison on the subject in Federalist 46, where Madison makes clear the role of states and men at arms in keeping the central government from overwhelming their sovereignty, emphases mine:

This is an excerpt from Federalist 46:

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people.

On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them.

I will say that Breyer does have a point that the founders couldn't have envisioned some of the weapons that we have today. Would they have been ok with everyday citizens having machine guns, rocket launchers, or a nuke?

However, in Reality, there is no way that we can tell that for sure. He may have an argument, if he was talking about restricting guns, but I believe that they sure wouldn't be ok with the outright gun ban like DC had and what was the issue that they were deciding in "D.C. v. Heller" case.

Jindal Signs Bill That'll Allow People to Bitterly Hang Onto Their Guns With Their Bibles While in Church

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed a bill into law today that would allow people to bitterly hang on to their guns and their Bibles in church (excluding churches with schools on the premises) at the same time:

Gun control supporters are up in arms over Louisiana's new law allowing churchgoers to pack heat along with their Bibles.

Gov. Bobby Jindal gave his blessing this week to churches, synagogues and mosques to allow concealed handguns on their premises, overturning a state ban....

Supporters of the measure say it can be a deterrent against criminal activity in church and will give an option to ministers and pastors to incorporate concealed handguns into their security plans.

Opponents argue it's inappropriate to have concealed handguns in church.


"The question Louisiana residents need to be asking themselves is: Is someone who takes a single eight-hour class fit to defend themselves should a crisis situation arise in the church?," said Ladd Everitt, a spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. "We would say no."

The Supreme Court gave individuals back the right to bear arms last week, and this is another extension of that right in Louisiana.

Sen. Whitehouse: SCOTUS Recently “Discovered” the Individual’s Right to Bear Arms

This might be a slow week for me. Since this week is going to be dominated by the Kagan confirmation, I am not going to be writing as much because I refuse to write too much about them. Supreme Court confirmation hearings are nothing but a dog-and-pony show. Those that are being confirmed don’t ever really say what they think and tell the Senate what they’re really going to do once they get on the bench. So, I’d rather not write about something that is obviously kabuki.

Fortunately, I did find one gem from my new favorite senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.



He goes on to explain that he doesn’t want his judicial nominees to be activists and said that he was looking for “judicial restraint”, and if I didn’t know better, I would have sworn that he wanted a strict constructionist. Then, he goes on to rail on the conservative wing of the Supreme Court. He claims the THEY are the ones that are activists. He complains the Court has recently “witnessed the DISCOVERY of the individual’s right to bear arms” referencing the Heller decision, which affirmed the individual’s right to bear arms in DC. Then, he says that this is a right that had been “previously gone unnoticed by the Court for 220 years. Um, Sheldon, that’s probably because no level of government had ever tried to enforce an outright ban on guns until recently. Why would the Supreme Court have any reason to address blanket gun bans, if they didn’t exist before 1975? Before then, it was just understood that individuals had that right. There were no gun bans in the 1800’s. It was the activism of local lawmakers and lower court judges that recently discovered that the right to bear arms didn’t include individuals.

It gets especially rich, when he invokes abortion in his argument, considering that before 1973 there was no right to kill fetuses until the Court “discovered” one in Roe V Wade. Before 1973, it was just assumed that unborn babies had the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that everyone else did. I wonder if Whitehouse was just upset when the Court discovered that right. Somehow, I doubt it. It fits his political ideology unlike the incorporation of the Second Amendment on local governments.

Breaking: Supreme Court Rules in Case That'll Reverse Chicago's Blanket Handgun Ban

The Supreme Court has just ruled against the Chicago in the McDonald v Chicago handgun ban case. While not specifically striking it down the handgun ban in Chicago, it will no doubt be the end result. It will, also, put both existing and potential handgun bans in other cities on the chopping blocks.

Justice Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, in this case explains their decision:

Despite all this evidence, municipal respondents argue that Members of Congress overwhelmingly viewed §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment as purely an antidiscrimination rule. But while §1 does contain an antidiscrimination rule, i.e., the Equal Protection Clause, it can hardly be said that the section does no more than prohibit discrimination. If what municipal respondents mean is that the Second Amendment should be singled out for special—and specially unfavorable—treatment, the Court rejects the suggestion. The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner.

While Alito and the 4 other judges that voted for the ban pointed out that the Second Amendment should be incorporated for local governments just as it is with the federal government.

The 4 dissenting judges were arguing more for an “incorporation for me, but not for thee” view of the second amendment, as Justice Scalia portrays in the dissenting opinion:

The next constraint JUSTICE STEVENS suggests is harder to evaluate. He describes as “an important tool for guiding judicial discretion” “sensitivity to the interaction between the intrinsic aspects of liberty and the practical realities of contemporary society.” Post, at 24. I cannot say whether that sensitivity will really guide judges because I have no idea what it is. Is it some sixth sense instilled in judges when they ascend to the bench? Or does it mean judge sare more constrained when they agonize about the cosmic conflict between liberty and its potentially harmful consequences? Attempting to give the concept more precision, JUSTICE STEVENS explains that “sensitivity is an aspect of a deeper principle: the need to approach our work with humility and caution.” Ibid. Both traits are undeniably admirable, though what relation they bear to sensitivity is a mystery. But it makes no difference, for the first case JUSTICE STEVENS cites in support, see ibid., Casey, 505 U. S., at 849, dispels any illusion that he has a meaningful form of judicial modesty in mind.

JUSTICE STEVENS offers no examples to illustrate the next constraint: stare decisis, post, at 25. But his view of it is surely not very confining, since he holds out as a “canonical” exemplar of the proper approach, see post, at 16, 54, Lawrence, which overruled a case decided a mere 17 years earlier, Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U. S. 186 (1986), see 539 U. S., at 578 (it “was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today”). Moreover, JUSTICE STEVENS would apply that constraint unevenly: He apparently approves those Warren Court cases that adopted jotfor-jot incorporation of procedural protections for criminal defendants, post, at 11, but would abandon those Warren Court rulings that undercut his approach to substantive rights, on the basis that we have “cut back” on cases from that era before, post, at 12.

The dissenting judges are letting their personal political views get in the way of their decision in this case. Their aversion for guns is the only reason why they are would go against McDonald here. There is no legit legal reason for incorporating every other amendment, including illegal search and seizure, freedom of press, and due process, but not the right to bear arms. Blanket handgun bans will very soon be nothing short of a bad memory.

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case Concerning Constitutionality of Local Handgun Bans Next Year

One of the first cases that the new Supreme Court, with the addition of Justice Sotomayor, will be a case involving an issue of apprehension for conservatives, the local application of the Second Amendment:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether strict local and state gun control laws violate the Second Amendment, ensuring another high-profile battle over the rights of gun owners. The court said it will review a lower court ruling that upheld a handgun ban in Chicago. Gun rights supporters challenged gun laws in Chicago and some suburbs immediately following the high court's decision in June 2008 that struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia, a federal enclave.

The last court, with Souter, decided against a similar ban in DC, earlier this year. However, since DC is a federal district and not an independent city or state, it doesn't automatically {pertain} to the rest of America on a local government level. So, the court took this opportunity to clarify their position on the issue.

As an appellate judge, Sotomayor decided in a case similar to this one in New York. That particular case was, also, appealed, but the Chicago case was taken instead. So, Sotomayor wouldn't have to recuse herself.

In the New York case, she voted to uphold the ban just as Souter voted to uphold the DC ban. So, the court didn't tilt anymore to the left with the addition of Justice Sotomayor. The dynamic of the is the same as before. As a result, there is a very good chance that the court will rule the same way and overturn all total handgun bans across the country. That would be a major victory for the Second Amendment.

The case will be heard sometime next year.

Exit Thought:

I find it extra delicious that they are using a case from Obama's home district. Was it intentional?

Chicago Appellate Court Upholds City's Gun Ban

Liberal judicial activists have upheld the unconstitutional law that made guns of any type illegal in Chicago:

A Chicago ordinance banning handguns and automatic weapons within city limits was upheld by a U.S. Court of Appeals panel, which rejected a challenge by the National Rifle Association.

The unanimous three-judge panel ruled today that a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year, which recognized an individual right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, didn’t apply to states and municipalities.

Again, liberal judges made the argument that the second amendment doesn't apply to states:

The unanimous three-judge panel ruled today that a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year, which recognized an individual right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, didn’t apply to states and municipalities.

“The Supreme Court has rebuffed requests to apply the second amendment to the states,” U.S. Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote, upholding lower court decisions last year to throw out suits against Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Illinois.

This case shows how dangerous for the second amendment it would be to have judicial activists in our courts. Sotomayor, Obama's Supreme Court pick, seems to have the same judicial beliefs as the appellate court in Chicago.

If People Don't First Believe, Lie, Lie Again: Obama Purports Debunked 90% Mexican Gun Claim

"This war is being waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border."-Obama

Obama seems to be determined to continue misleading the American people. FNC's Major Garrett has figured out how the Democrat's have pretzeled the facts to be able to make the claim that 90% of the Mexican drug cartel's guns come from the US with a straight face:

To some, it might sound as if Obama is saying 90 percent of all guns captured from the cartels originated in America. But that's not what the president means, senior National Security Council Spokesman Denis McDonough told FOX News on Saturday.

Of course, that's was people would think because that's the obvious meaning of what he said.

Is anyone else having Bill Clinton flashbacks? I'm remembering people having to ask him to define "sexual relations". Do we have to ask Obama to define "recovered"?

Never mind McDonough did that already:

"By recovered he means traceable, guns traced back to the United States," McDonough said. "These are ATF (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms) numbers. These are the guns submitted to the ATF for tracing. That's what we mean by recovered."

So, he does not mean 90% of all recovered guns just the recovered guns that could actually traced back anywhere.

That's like saying that 90% of the peanuts in my apartment are Planters because of the ones that are still in its original container that percentage are Planters peanuts. I failed to recognize the peanuts that I might have already put in storage containers and are "untraceable". (Ya, I know stupid analogy, but that was the best I could do off the cuff.)

As FOX News has previously reported, a large percentage of firearms recovered in Mexico from the drug cartels are not submitted to U.S. officials for tracing because they lack the necessary markings.

In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Those 11,000 firearms were part of the 29,000 firearms Mexican officials recovered at crime scenes. According to the ATF, of the 11,000 submitted to U.S. officials for tracing, 6,000 could be traced somewhere because of the serial numbers or other distinctive markings. Of those 6,000 firearms, 5,114 or 90 percent, were found to have been smuggled from the U.S.

Oh, so I see how the math works now. Democrats sure had to twist the facts into a tangled web in order to get that 90% stat.

They wanted something to give their agenda of gun control and pipe dream of outlawing guns altogether some credibility. They can't get it from clear and concise stats. So, they had to gerrymander the numbers to get their desired outcome like they do most of the time. Why is it that they can rarely be straight with the facts in order to defend their ideas and beliefs?

Garrett sums it all up:

Just to repeat: recovered doesn't mean the percentage of all firearms confiscated at Mexican crime scenes. It doesn't mean the subset of these firearms traceable to any source. It does mean the percentage of traceable weapons linked to a U.S. source. And, again, that total is 5,114 out of 29,000 -- or 17.6 percent -- in the years 2007 and 2008.

Once again, Obama and the Democrats have been caught misrepresenting the truth...No, wait outright lying about where the Mexican drug cartels are getting their guns. Look at the old links below to see where they're really coming from, and it isn't the US.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/19/obama-repeats-percent-stat-guns-recovered-mexico/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://weeklypoliticalreview.blogspot.com/2009/04/democrats-pitch-fabrication-say-90-of.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------