January 11, 2011

Protecting lawmakers: Arm them? Install shields?

Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Several lawmakers defiantly vowed Tuesday to arm themselves after the shooting rampage in Arizona despite the Senate’s top law enforcement officer’s admonition that more guns would not be the answer.

“It’s not that I’m going to be like Wyatt Earp,” declared Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., who said he was re-applying for a state permit to carry a concealed weapon even if he didn’t necessarily plan to carry the pistol to public events.

In a Capitol already ringed by concrete stanchions and armed guards, members of Congress struggled to come up with new ways to ensure their safety in a democracy suddenly shaken by an assassin’s bullets. Republican and Democratic leaders signaled that closer coordination with local law enforcement was a practical first step after the Arizona shootings that left six dead and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords critically wounded.

Beyond that, talk centered on legislation that would make it a crime to carry a weapon within 1,000 feet of elected or high-ranking federal officials at publicly announced events and a proposal to install a Plexiglas enclosure to protect the House floor from gallery spectators — two ideas unlikely to get much traction in the new Congress. Democrats also called for rolling back a 5 percent, GOP-engineered cut in congressional spending and redirecting the money to security.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, seemed cool to the idea. “We will rely on the recommendations of the sergeant-at-arms and the Capitol police,” he said.

A security briefing for lawmakers was scheduled for Wednesday morning.

Questioned about lawmakers taking matters into their own hands by carrying concealed weapons, Terrance Gainer, the Senate’s sergeant-at-arms and former Washington, D.C., police chief, said it wouldn’t solve the problem.

“I don’t think it’s a good idea,” Gainer told ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “I don’t think introducing more guns into the situation is going to be helpful.”

Gainer said threats to members of the Senate had increased over the past year — to 49. But he said he considered the number small given all the interactions that lawmakers have with the public.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, still plans to carry his handgun at public events, his office said, despite Gainer’s remarks. “It’s a personal choice,” said Chaffetz spokeswoman Alisia Essig.

Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C., also said he plans to carry a concealed handgun more often. He obtained a permit after an angry constituent threatened his life in 2009.

Several other lawmakers questioned whether sweeping changes to congressional security are logistically or politically possible.

“The body is just too large. I don’t think democracy ever anticipated that there would be problems like this,” said Rep. John Larson, D-Conn.

Threats against lawmakers are not uncommon, but actual violence is quite rare. Rep. Leo Ryan, D-Calif., was murdered in Guyana by cult members just before the massive suicide in Jonestown in 1978.

In 1954, several Puerto Rican nationalists fired about 30 pistol shots in the House of Representatives chamber, wounding five lawmakers, and in 1983 a bomb, planted by people protesting the U.S. military presence in Lebanon and Grenada, did minor damage in a hallway outside the Senate chamber.

Security in the Capitol became considerably tighter after a July 1998 incident in which a man fatally shot two Capitol Police officers.

Republican Rep. Peter King of New York plans to introduce a bill that would make it a crime to carry a weapon within 1,000 feet of elected or high-ranking federal officials at publicly announced events.

King, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, said the measure would give local police another tool to check and possibly question people approaching members of Congress, the Cabinet, the CIA director and people attending their public events.

Winning congressional approval of such a bill won’t be easy, King said. “There’s a good number of members in Congress who instinctively oppose gun legislation,” he said.

In the wake of the attack on Giffords, longtime Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., is reviving his legislation to install a Plexiglas shield enclosing the visitors’ gallery in the House chamber, which he argues would protect lawmakers. The proceedings of the House could still be seen and would be clearly audible to the general public.

Just last week, during a reading of the Constitution in the House, a woman in the visitors gallery was removed by Capitol police after she interrupted lawmakers with shouts.

Burton has pushed for the measure in previous sessions of Congress, but it’s never gotten out of the House Administration Committee. He planned to propose a version of the bill next week, his press secretary, Josh Gillespie, said Tuesday.

“I think you’ll see a lot of legislation that pours forth, but you’ve got to sift through it all,” Rep. Larson said. “Anytime in the immediate aftermath of something, there’s usually not a silver bullet. The more you listen, the more you synthesize, perhaps you come up with some common sense ideas.”

36 comments on this story so far. Add yours!

johnclarke on January 11 at 2:17 p.m.
“Republican Rep. Peter King of New York plans to introduce a bill that would make it a crime to carry a weapon within 1,000 feet of elected or high-ranking federal officials at publicly announced events. ”
That actually makes sense. Bravo.
Kivaari on January 11 at 2:40 p.m.
Typical New York response. King, even though he is a Republican, is an urbanite that is nuts. Outlawing guns within a 1000 feet is going to do exactly what? Maybe use a rifle? Wear a suicide bomb vest? A Knife? Run his car through the crowd?
Taking rights away from citizens doesn’t fix the problem.
johnclarke on January 11 at 3:09 p.m.
And ensuring the killer could legally purchase that Glock helps so very much, and let’s not forget the 33 round mag as well. See, we need those in America to take on 33 dangerous animals at once.
That is why there is a rush on Glocks right now. Not all handguns mind you, but Glocks. That’s because people actually think that “the man” is going to take their guns away. That is why there was a huge rush on ammo the day Obama was elected. That is what we are dealing with in this country. All those legally armed citizens in Arizona did what to stop that killer? Nothing.
Scoutster on January 11 at 3:18 p.m.
If Rep Giffords had been carrying a concealed weapon she still would have been shot.
west on January 11 at 3:28 p.m.
I’m sure she wasn’t the first politician shot at in last 100 years.
johnclarke on January 11 at 3:29 p.m.
Bingo. Trained security people might have helped. I can tell you that as a competetive IPSC shooter, it is one thing to go punch holes in paper - and quite another to draw that weapon and engage during a crisis. Personally, I see no reason to be carrying at something like a town hall or political function - unless I was a poser.
Thoreau on January 11 at 3:34 p.m.
And how would one know when they are in the midst of a “lawmaker”? We are all a potential threat, and 99% of the time, nothing happens, because our greatest weapon - morality - is the first wielded. JFK was killed well over 1,000 feet away, if I’m not mistaken. Many assasinations are executed from afar. Pretty soon, the right to carry a weapon will have 100 asterisks beside it: not in a bar, a school, a federal building, in Starbucks…….
rightwingextreme on January 11 at 3:42 p.m.
Why are our senators not armed? they are foolish not to be! They are leaders for heavens sake, leaders are always targets look at history!!! If you are a senator or anyone else leading the country or even a large business you either need to be armed yourself or have at least an armed bodyguard!!! Anyone leader who does not carry is a FOOL!!! Wake up folks!!!
valleyman on January 11 at 3:43 p.m.
Regulations merely make it harder for those who choose to obey the law and no more difficult for those who choose to disregard them.
We’ve passed anti-gun laws for schools and that has sure stopped those nasty school shootings hasn’t it… What we’ve done is turn schools into a free-kill zone where a shooter can go in and inflict maximum carnage without anyone being there to be armed to stop the threat…
So if I were to extrapolate from this article and from some comments, if we are to arm our lawmakers because lunatics shoot them, we should also arm our teachers and our students because some lunatics shoot them… If that sounds crazy……….
MrNatural on January 11 at 3:44 p.m.
….the terrorists have won…
johnclarke on January 11 at 4:01 p.m.
or the idiots. Arizona is about the carry-ingist state out there and all those concealed weapons helped no one except the gun stores. Everything else is talk.
maria on January 11 at 4:13 p.m.
We also need to arm 9 year-olds. It’s the only way to be sure.
johnclarke on January 11 at 4:26 p.m.
Like I said, we need those 33 round mags to take on 33 dangerous animals at once. These things NEED to be legal otherwise my rights are being brought down by the man.
valleyman on January 11 at 4:30 p.m.
Where does it stop Clarke? A guy with a 15 round clip shoots 15 people so we need to ban 15 round clips? A guy with a 10 round clip shoots 10, so we need to ban 10 round clips… A guy with 5…
Before long you’ll have one bullet in the gun and they’ll try and ban the gun because they can’t get any fewer bullets in the clip.
Besides, these things are out there already and do you really think banning them for those who follow the law will keep them out of the hands of those who don’t follow the law???
Charlie on January 11 at 4:32 p.m.
Rep. King is pandering to the NY media. His bill will get very little support and probably never get out of conference. As for extended clips, any good shooter can drop an empty clip out of the weapon and insert a new one in about 4 seconds or less and they are more concealable. Gun control laws DO NOT impede the criminal, they will get a weapon one way ore another. A mandatory sentence for the use of a gun might slow down some criminals, execution surely will.
empyrius on January 11 at 4:47 p.m.
All of these mass killing sprees seem to always be perpetrated by people who legally buys guns, there is a pattern here . . .
And maria is right, that nine-year old little girl should have been packing some heat, in truth, every person at that gathering should have been packing guns, it would have made a much higher body count in all likelihood, everybody shooting everywhere and at whomever, but that is what handguns are for - shooting people -!
Guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people: and these mass murderers always use their parents legal guns or buy their own!
Hmmmmmmm
valleyman on January 11 at 4:55 p.m.
Empyrius:
If we were to examine national statistics on gun violence and by whom it was perpetrate, I am confident you would find you are in error. The majority of gun violence is committed by those who are already legally prohibited from owning firearms, making any gun they possess illegal. Further, many of the weapons used are unregistered, also making them illegal…
If you pass a gun ban, and all law abiding citizens obey that ban, who will have all the guns then? CRIMINALS…
empyrius on January 11 at 5:26 p.m.
I am not talking about drug-dealing gangs getting into shoot-outs with the cops valleyman, or some thug knocking off a pharmacy for their prescription drug addiction; I am talking about mass murderers; almost to the man every one of these Virginia Tech’s, Moses Lakes, Colombines, and murderous workplace rampages are committed by legal gun owners or kids who have parents that legally own guns.
You are right though that a gun ban would result in only the criminals having guns, i.e., the government and organized criminals, but in truth valleyman, when is the last time you have a lethal encounter with a gang of drug dealers?
Unlike drugs that can be made in peoples’ basements or grow out of the earth, not very many people have the means to manufacture guns from scratch and sell them on the black market . . .
Was not the 2nd Amendment originally meant for the people to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government more so than each other? Regardless, this “2nd Amendment remedy” is quite effective on a micro scale as we have just so horrifically learned: let the glock sales proceed at a fevered pitch!
johnclarke on January 11 at 5:55 p.m.
Where does it stop valleyman? How about common sense? What on earth is the sporting use for an assault style weapon or high capacity mags ? How many rounds do you need in your rifle to hunt with? All the serious handgun shooters I know all carry the 1911 with 7 round mags.
Anyway, this is a pointless argument. They tried to ban assault style weapons and the NRA just worked around it.
johnclarke on January 11 at 5:57 p.m.
And Charlie, that is when the murderer was taken down, when he was trying to reload. Thank whoever he didn’t get another 33 rounds in his legally purchased Glock.
Charlie on January 11 at 6:22 p.m.
Assault weapons by definition have a selector switch that lets the shooter go from a single shot to full auto. True assault weapons owned by the general public have been illegal since 1934 by law. What congress did in their assault weapon ban was to ban ugly guns.
The debate that should be going on right now is mental health or the lack of. It seems that a lot of homeless people have mental problems. This man Jared should have been committed but wasn’t. The law is that until a person does something, he is free to walk around. To late for those people is Tucson.
Dazzeetrader11 on January 11 at 6:44 p.m.
1. It’s about crazy people.
2. It’s not about performance of politicians.good or bad.
3. Stop the mentally ill like this kid. Somebody..everyone who commented on how deranged this kid was should have spoken up…especially his parents should have. BUT those teachers who said they were afraid to turn their backs on him..well they should have spoken. up. He has hiding in plain sight but nobody said anything.
4. Kids or people like this are obviously struggling…..although the ACLU libs prohibited the mentally ill being picked up and evaluated several years ago in NY.
5. This is NOT about guns anymore than it’s about deranged drivers who damage, disable and kill people with their cars. You don’t kill the car or ban autos…but you do pick up the driver and be sure he doesn’t drive. Kinda like keys being taken at a bar…..you disable the driver.
woamike on January 11 at 7:25 p.m.
jclarke wrote:
“Republican Rep. Peter King of New York plans to introduce a bill that would make it a crime to carry a weapon within 1,000 feet of elected or high-ranking federal officials at publicly announced events. ”
That actually makes sense. Bravo.
I say: how does this make sense? If that law had already been in place, would it have prevented the crime? Criminals don’t obey laws in the first place. Bans guns all you want, go house to house and take all guns if you want - do you think for a nano-second that will keep guns out of the hands of bad guys? Seriously. . .
johnclarke on January 11 at 7:53 p.m.
woamike; no clueless - I think it would help keep crazy people with guns 1,000 feet away from political events. Just like rules stop crazy people from carrying a concealed weapon into a courthouse…as an example. Listen, I’d love to debate the finer points of arms control with you super genius types - but clearly I am out of my league.
maria on January 11 at 8:20 p.m.
I just got this e-mail from my good friend in Tuscon:
“Just a thought, as I watch tonight’s news. Let everyone know that we’re in shock, that this is our 9/11, that we’re just trying to make sense of what happened.
Gaby Giffords is a love. I met her one sunny day at Reid Park. She was rollerblading, I was walking. I saw her coming and our eyes locked. “GABY!” She stopped. I told her I voted for her. She looked at me closely and asked me if I’d met her at the Women’s Health Symposium last spring. I was bald at the time, from chemotherapy. I wanted to say, “naaah, all of us baldies look alike.” But I didn’t want to make her feel uncomfortable. But I know now she would have taken it all in stride.
I want to give a shout out to everyone there tonight, to let you know how we Tucsonans are feeling right now. To ask for everyone’s healing, both bodily and spiritually.”
So, for my friend, I will tone it down. Also, please pray for this friend who has cancer. Thanks.
Alfredo on January 11 at 9:00 p.m.
I have a question. If “law abiding” citizens have such a hard time obtaining guns, how do criminals get a hold of them so easily? They must come from somewhere.
Anyway, having a law that prohibits guns within 1000 feet of a legislator is not a bad idea but what would it accomplish? Would they need security and metal detectors wherever they go? Sounds expensive.
Dazzeetrader11 on January 11 at 9:49 p.m.
Maria…she spells he name “Gabby”…tell your fake friend. March on….
Alfredo on January 11 at 9:57 p.m.
Daisy, the English speaking world refers to female possessive as “her,” not the masculine possessive “he.”
I just think someone who is going to nitpick should be held to the same standard. Dontcha think?
empyrius on January 11 at 10:31 p.m.
Since the repuglicans worship the U.S. government like it is God incarnate, and demoncrats are all evil, then one would figure all “law-abiding” Americans would wholeheartedly support a repeal of the 2nd amendment and a confiscation of all handguns! Hunting rifles alone could be stockpiled by the citizenry and then only the U.S. armed forces would possess WMDs! And any of those crazy right, or left, wing crazies that took up arms would be wiped off the earth by our Homeland Security.
Within ten years of the ban on handguns all street thugs with guns would either be dead or in prison; and of course that nonsense about “an armed society being a safe society” would be thoroughly debunked!
Then our streets would no longer run red with blue-blood and we could actually find out if a disarmed society would be a safe society!
Is not your “sacred” constitution subject to change? If not then why do we allow “coloreds” and women to vote or count Natives as full persons? If we want to remain true to “original intent” then all guns should be kept for the taxman . . .
No crosshairs intended.
Or mayhap, like Holy Scripture itself, different interpretations are perceived by every reader! Gotta love that protestantism! If a man-made document cannot be construed to fit the modern times then that document is dead; and I refuse to live by the words of centuries old dead white dudes!
Peter was commanded to sheathe the gun of his day, his sword, and the 1st true Christians were slaughtered by their own government; and history repeats! What was Nietzsche’s phrase??? Eternal recurrence (in an earthly-bound, temporally-limited) sense (see!, I used a “timeless” idea for contemporary thinking in a contextually different way: imagine that!) . . .
Jesus-loving Christians do not take up arms, but we will assuredly die for what we believe in.
pax vobiscum
maria on January 12 at 12:31 a.m.
Daisy, my friend, and not a fake friend, spelled it Gabby. Don’t ever call me a liar.
maria on January 12 at 12:33 a.m.
Gaby
maria on January 12 at 12:40 a.m.
Daisy, why the hell would I make that up? I don’t joke or lie about people with cancer. My old friend has lost both of her breasts to cancer. You are disgusting. I’ve never even been to Tucson, so how would I know about the name of a park there??? I reported you for calling me liar.
drywitt99 on January 12 at 2:24 a.m.
This statement from Rep. Giffords official House website:
Statement from U.S. Navy Captain Mark Kelly
“On behalf of Gabby and our entire family, I want to extend our heartfelt gratitude to the people of Arizona and this great nation for their unbelievable outpouring of support.
Daisy is right.
Damn but that is hard to say!
drywitt99 on January 12 at 2:26 a.m.
Make nice now girls.
maria on January 12 at 6:59 a.m.
Uhmmm….”Gabby” is the way her nickname is spelled, just not the way my friend in Tucson spelled it. I copied and pasted directly from my friend’s e-mail. Notice in previous postings I’ve made regarding this subject on SR, I spelled it “Gabby”.
Daisy is wrong. That’s easy to say!
valleyman on January 12 at 8:42 a.m.
Look how petty you’ve all gotten! We’re going to tear each other apart over spelling!!!
We’ve gotten so far off the issue here that you are all lost in the weeds.
I know… I know… she did it first, or she started it…. Does that make what you do that much more right?!