Gabrielle Giffords / Tucson shooting prompts more gun control law in New York. Is New Jersey next?

I try to stay out of national issues on this blog, but you can’t ignore the Giffords / Tucson shooting and its potential impact on the already insane laws of New Jersey.  While there are no state politicians making any statements as far as I can tell, I figured I’d round up some of the news articles that discuss the issue from across the country.

Long Island congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, who went into politics after her husband was killed by a crazed gunman, says she’s going to kick off that debate as early as today by introducing new legislation to keep these weapons out of the hands of the deranged.  Story is at:

Rep. Peter King said Tuesday he plans to introduce a new gun safety bill in Congress in the wake of the mass shooting in Arizona that killed six people and wounded 14 others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz.  King said his bill would make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within a thousand feet of “certain high-profile” government officials.  Story is at:

Gun control advocates say the immediacy of the Tucson shootings is key to pushing legislation now, before public outrage fades.  “The NRA is doing what it always does, they want people to not talk about the issue, they want to delay until the collective state of excitement over the issue has gone down,” said Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

 Story is at

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) on Tuesday called for tougher federal gun laws, including banning large ammunition clips and federal regulations on concealed weapons permits, in the wake of the shooting rampage in Tucson that killed six and left Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) gravely wounded.

Story is at

The number of Americans who favor stricter gun laws has spiked significantly in the wake of the weekend shooting spree that killed six and left Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) in critical condition, reversing a long-running trend of declining support for more stringent gun control, according to a new CBS poll.

Story is at

Fears of potential legislation that would limit the size of handgun clips in the wake of this weekend’s mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona, have led many gun owners to flock to gun shops to stockpile high-capacity magazines.
Read more:

“The only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun is to kill a lot of people very quickly,” Lautenberg said Monday in a statement announcing the bill. “Before 2004, these ammunition clips were banned, and they must be banned again.”

A Hoyer spokesman was more certain that lawmakers would take a look at gun reform options, but offered no specifics about what those reforms might look like — or if they stand a chance of passing a GOP-led House.

Story is at

Couric: There are also laws that allow you to take concealed or non-concealed weapons and carry them with you at all times. Is that correct?

Dupnik: That is absolutely correct. That’s the height of insanity. I don’t know what else they can do. Maybe they could pass a law that would require that every child have an Uzi in their crib.

Yet for a number of the gun owners who wandered among the hundreds of displays of shotguns, handguns and ammunition at the South Towne Expo Center on Sunday, there potentially was another tragedy lurking in the background.  It centered on the fear the shooting could spark a new wave of gun control legislation that could threaten to undermine the right to keep and bear firearms.

Story is at

Posted on January 13, 2011, in News and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 1 Comment.

  1. The part of your post where a person named Dupnik argues that carrying a firearm is insanity should be closely examined. His absurd exaggeration of the argument that we should not stop at allowing American citizens to own firearms but toddlers as well because the laxness of gun laws is out of control makes no sense whatsoever. It is as childish and silly as the population he is describing. Clearly people who have not researched the issue regarding its basis for being established or looked at it in a reasonable light have no idea what they are talking about. Take nuclear weapons as a means of national defense for example. There are some oppressive regimes, “bad apples” (North Korea), that are going to try and get their hands on them to potentially use them. There are governments who possess them, show restraint and have not ever used them. There will always be good people and bad people acquiring weapons. It is human nature and it makes no sense to punish good people when bad people act criminally.

%d bloggers like this: