« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Second Amendment Under Attack In 2011

America is a nation in mourning as a result of the violent tragedy in Arizona last weekend.  This is an appropriate time for prayer and national healing.  This is not the time to restrict the Second Amendment rights of Americans to defend themselves from unbalanced individuals.

The enemies of freedom will use the Arizona tragedy to push for gun control.  streiff of Red State said it well when he argued that the left is using this tragedy for political advantage.  This is true and we have evidence that politicians are already coming up with ideas to restrain freedom in the name of security.  Expect 2011 to be a year when the opponents of the Second Amendment try to push for legislation to take away your rights to “keep and bear arms.”

Ben Keane and I wrote a piece for The Foundry, where we argued that Gun Control Is Not Proper Reaction to Arizona Tragedy.  There are two new proposals on the table.

Representative Peter King (R-NY) has one idea to create gun free bubbles around elected officials.

Representative Peter King (R-NY) was one of the first to offer up a hasty legislative reaction to the Arizona tragedy, proposing a new law that would “make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within 1,000 feet of certain high-profile government officials.”   While King has yet to develop specific legislative language for the bill, he asserts that such a law “would give federal, state, and local law enforcement a better chance to intercept potential gunmen before they pull the trigger.”  In the abstract, this overarching goal may play well politically and receive positive media reaction in the wake of the horrible atrocity in Tucson.  In reality, however, King’s provision is likely to prove impossible to enforce, raise a number of constitutional objections, and provide little in the way of additional protection for government officials.

Keane argues that this new idea would create a “roving 1,000-foot gun-free bubble around every so-called ‘high-profile government official.’”  This will cause practical law enforcement problems that raise constitutional issues.  How will people know when they are violating this law?  What if a Congressman goes to a gun range and others are at the range engaging in target practice?  All individual at the gun range will be subject to criminal liability.  It will also criminalize gun shows when a Member of Congress attends one.

I wrote about Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Representative Carolyn McCarthy’s (D-NY) idea to ban high capacity ammunition clips for guns.  Any attempt to reinstate the Clinton Gun Ban would not have prevented the violence in Arizona.

According to the National Journal, Lautenberg and McCarthy “plan to introduce legislation to limit high-capacity clips that allow shooters to fire a large number of rounds without reloading.”  McCarthy introduced a bill in 2007, H.R. 1022, that reinstated two provisions of the Clinton Gun Ban (Sections 7 and Section 9).  These provisions banned the transfer of large capacity ammunition feeding device and the importation of large capacity ammunition feeding devices. Regardless of what one thinks about this policy, it remains clear that such provisions would not have prevented the massacre at issue because the alleged weapon used was a Glock and the provisions in existence between 1994 and 2004 would not have banned the magazine used by the killer.  Much like the King proposal, this bill smacks more of opportunism than common-sense policy making.

The two gun control initiatives in the public domain are no less than feel good politics.  The two ideas would will do nothing to prevent a future violent act by an unbalanced individual.  Yet these ideas will allow politicians to check the box and say that they did something.  These two ideas on the table will do irreparably harm to freedom.

The Second Amendment should not be restricted because of the act of one madman in Arizona.  Expect gun control ideas to reproduce and multiply in 2011.  These two gun grabbing ideas are just the beginning of a push from the left to take away your gun rights and your freedom.

COMMENTS

  • melbedewy

    Second Amendment has never been stronger in any of our lifetimes. These pathetic little bills will get Mcarthy some face time on Keith Doberman. They won’t even get a hearing.
    The concern that is real is that the Republican Congress we elected stop the Greek style $5 billion a DAY deficit which is rapidly taking us from that rhetorical “ditch” to the bottom of a cliff, a la Thelma and Louise.

    • Tbone

      Protecting the Second Amendment is a constant battle. There are those who fight that battle daily. You, however, are welcome to picket for a lower deficits and we will appreciate your efforts.

  • macbookben

    …AZ already has purchase restrictions which SHOULD have kicked in prior to JL’s “lawful purchase” of a handgun. Had responsible authorities followed up on complaints/concerns regarding JL’s unstable behavior, this mechanism to promote public safety might had worked. On the other hand, purchase restrictions, concealed carry laws, semi-auto weapons bands, etc. have zero effect on those who intend obtain a firearm and plan to use one carelessly.

  • rjhfl

    I hope the left keeps it up. I am sure they will, since they are incapable of acting otherwise. They have fully exposed themselves to the American people, and the people are revolted by what they see. Sooner or later, the adults in the Democrat Party are going to have to step in, or the party will become extinct…and that would not be good for the Country.

  • america1st

    This is a core agenda of the statist left, for an armed populace always has the potential for active resistance to the imposition of any totalitarian scheme.

    And, in reality, attacks on the 2nd Amendment are to be expected anywhere lib-progs gather. They don’t need an event such as Tucson’s for inspiration, only to grease the skids of their sled on the downward path to tyranny.

  • bobmontgomery

    …a blue t-shirt that praises collectivism, and he should sit with the Democrats at the State of the Union address.

    • Tbone

      Seeing as how he wants to sit with the greatest gun-grabber in the history of the US, Scumbag Schumer

      • bobmontgomery

        …just read that the O is hosting a get-together for newly-elected critters the night before SOTU address No word on whether he will be handing out t-shirts, but cordiality is breaking out all over isn’t it? Word leaked out that O was reading a Reagan book. Why, maybe he’s seeing the light! If we appoint some more moderates to committee chairmanships, maybe O won’t push amnesty too hard!

  • talgus

    That the killer had a glock does not negate the fact that he had it loaded with magazines of greater that 10 round capacity. Given that he was subdued during reload, and had shot 20+ times, he must have had an aftermarket 30 rounder for the glock. Glock only makes LE only (OK after clinton ban expired) up to 17 rounds for 9mm
    The 30 rounders usually have feed problems. Too bad that did not occur.
    During the Clinton gun ban, magazines were limited to 10-rounds unless they were sold to Law Enforcement and marked as such.

  • aesthete

    Knows that high-capacity clips are not for lighting up foes or causing more damage: if you want to do that, extra clips and practicing how to reload quickly are much more beneficial. Larger clips and cartridges have an annoying proprensity to jam when a gun is fired in quick succession, which IIRC is exactly what happened to Loughner. High-capacity clips are useful for target practice, where you want to take your time and not have to reload every 5 seconds. If you ask me, Loughner’s ignorance on this subject saved lives: had he gone in with extra clips and practiced reloading, he would have left many more bodies in his wake.

    • JoeG

      People might live through getting shot in the head with a 9mm. They don’t when shot with much higher powered hand gun. Let alone choosing a rifle or shotgun.

  • kowalski

    The 2nd Amendment in this country should never be under attack except through really invalid and preconceived motivations.

    The 80-100 million gun owners in America and the several hundred thousand gun owners in Arizona didn’t perpetrate the crime that Jared Loughner did: Jared Loughner did.

    Tom Brokaw might be worried about going into a bar in Arizona but in my experience he shouldn’t be. There’s a tremendous difference between the responsible gun owners in this country, the ones who care about their rights and the ability to defend those rights, and the people like Jared Loughner.

    I have a longer post coming up about this. Magazine restrictions aren’t the answer, and neither is restricting the freedoms of the many because of the one crazy person who manages, despite all the evidence, to slip through the cracks. I live in a state with a 10 round magazine restriction that is a legacy of the Assault Weapons Ban and that restriction has not stopped any of the criminals. And it wouldnt!

    • kowalski

      A magazine capacity restriction wouldn’t have stopped Jared Loughner any more than a restriction on folding knives. The very first shot he fired was the one that critically injured the Congresswoman: he could have done it with a revolver or the knife that was in his pocket. If he hadn’t used one of those, he could have just as well used a machete, given the security at that event.

      And given the amount of time and effort he took to plan the assault, he would have accomplished his ends regardless of what restrictions were imposed upon him.

      The New York Times is being disingenuous this morning as always, emphasizing the Deputy Sheriff, who didn’t arrive until after all the shooting was done.

      • kowalski

        When you have an open air event featuring a member of Congress, repeatedly with absolutely no thought given to security precautions, eventually you might expect that someone crazy can literally waltz onto the scene and perpetrate something terrible and violent.

        And that is what happened in Tuscon. A crazy person realized that they had a chance to make the rest of the audience sitting ducks at an event he knew was completely unprotected.

        Whose fault is that? It’s the Sheriff’s fault.

    • kowalski

      I have the feeling that Tom Brokaw could go into a bar in Arizona at any time he wanted, sit down on a stool and start talking about the “Greatest Generation” and what he would find among all the gun owners there would be rapt attention and a lot of good will, among people who know how to defend themselves and really truly care about their right to keep and bear arms.

      What he would find, if he ventured to try, are a lot of patriots who keep their arms with them because they believe in their right to defend themselves and who are willing to discuss them pretty openly. He would find that the people with the weapons he’s so terribly worried about aren’t the ones he should be worried about.

  • http://www.redstate.com/etcartman Kenny Solomon

    Whoa.

    Article posted at the California Rifle And Pistol Association:

    http://www.crpa.org/_e/page/1597/mr01_18_2011.htm

    In a dramatic ruling giving gun owners a win in an National Rifle Association/California Rifle and Pistol (CRPA) Foundation lawsuit, this morning Fresno Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Hamilton ruled that AB 962, the hotly contested statute that would have banned mail order ammunition sales and required all purchases of so called “handgun ammunition? to be registered, was unconstitutionally vague on its face.

    The Court enjoined enforcement of the statute, so mail order ammunition sales to California can continue unabated, and ammunition sales need not be registered under the law.

    Of course, the gun-grabbing leftists will take this as far as they can and if need be, simply have either Governor Brown exec order it on a state level, or maybe even ask you-know-who to do it nationally.

  • Pingback: New age global Babylon? « Economic & Multicultural Terrorism