Two Lawmakers say they'll carry guns after Arizona shooting

So do I, but I, personally, would NOT advertise the fact if I were them.

Note they both said they wouldn't carry them in Washington, D.C., which is one place I would want to carry! Still haven't figured out why the House of Representatives didn't just overturn the city's gun laws. They have the power to do that.

This is good, but not very valuable for them to do. The shooting involved walking up to the Congresswoman and shooting her in the head. How can you know who is about to do this? Will they draw down on anyone approaching them quickly, or if they look a bit strange?

Well maybe they will get so used to carry that they will push some of their colleagues in DC to allow carry there. Though I am sure it will take the form of an exemption only for lawmakers and not the general public since they are soooo much more important than the rest of us.

This is good, but not very valuable for them to do. The shooting involved walking up to the Congresswoman and shooting her in the head. How can you know who is about to do this? Will they draw down on anyone approaching them quickly, or if they look a bit strange?

Click to expand...

You are of course completely correct, there are some instances you simply CAN NOT prepare for. For instance a meteor hitting your house while you sleep. Or a truck running a red light, but to be prepared for what you can be is simply good common sense. Lot's of carriers have used their weapon over the years to defend themselves and others that would have been victims otherwise.

I was just thinking(bad thing) how are they going to legally carry in DC? I guess politicians don't have the same laws I must follow. I know when I worked in DC for many years the "elite" had personal bodyguards armed with full auto weapons. Pays to have money and the right name I guess.

What Giffords really needed was not a gun but someone on her staff with a gun who can watch her back. Being a politician meeting constituents means you're not going to have any kind of situational awareness. If one of those staffers had seen this guy coming it could have ended much better.

The crazed lone attacker is the hardest to prepare for, for any of us. You prepare the best you can and hope for a break.

These folks carrying isn't any different than when we do it. Some situations you might be able to use a concealed firearm to get out of, some you can't.

Just one more tool, not the only one.

He didn't just shoot her in the head he shot her in the back of the head. Even a vest would not have helped her in this case. Body guard might have.

Frequently changes nothing due to the speed of an attack. As said, it is one more tool in the tool kit.

Forget about tactical advantages and disadvantages of defending oneself, congressmen and women carrying concealed weapons is a good thing. Especially if everyone knows it. This works in our favor.

Hopefully they go out and practice, or else they are just a problem themselves Innocent bystanders and that thinking

This is good, but not very valuable for them to do. The shooting involved walking up to the Congresswoman and shooting her in the head. How can you know who is about to do this? Will they draw down on anyone approaching them quickly, or if they look a bit strange?

Click to expand...

So...not carrying is a better alternative? Do we just roll over and die, and relenquish our right to self defense because of the circumstances of one isolated incident? Do you not wear your seatbelt because one person died while wearing one?

Good call, especially if you are going to shun your secret service protective detail.

alfack said:

Good call, especially if you are going to shun your secret service protective detail.

Click to expand...

only congressional leaders rate a security detail and I don't think it is provided by secret service (but I also don't know for sure). the average congressman has no secret service protective detail

good for them. i think if i were in there shoes and did not carry prior to these events then i would change my mind as well.

It is my understanding from various sources that these guys are not the only two looking at this option.

IIRC, there is a statute that allows members of Congress to be sworn in as deputy US marshals, allowing them to carry firearms even in the District.
The fact that two of these folks have openly announced they may do it has raised the right eyebrows, it appears. I've even mentioned that in my Examiner column today (TUESDAY).

I'm glad that these two are taking appropriate measures. They also have encouraged their staff to get their carry permits as well. And as others have pointed out, a weapon isn't the only tool in the toolbox.

So...not carrying is a better alternative? Do we just roll over and die, and relenquish our right to self defense because of the circumstances of one isolated incident? Do you not wear your seatbelt because one person died while wearing one?

Click to expand...

Not what I'm saying at all. We arm ourselves, but for most high value targets this is no where near enough. 10-15 police or body guards minimum should have been with the Congresswoman.

The crazed lone attacker is the hardest to prepare for, for any of us.

Click to expand...

This is what I would point to. You have an assassin, not a robber here. They are dealt with in different ways.

Dave Workman said:

IIRC, there is a statute that allows members of Congress to be sworn in as deputy US marshals, allowing them to carry firearms even in the District...

Click to expand...

I hope you didn't mention that statute in your column because it doesn't exist and can't exist. Members of Congress cannot be deputized (or sworn to any other federal law enforcement position - not even park ranger). It would violate the Constitutional separation of powers. U.S. marshals are responsible to the President of the United States and members of Congress cannot be in a position where they are responsible to the President.

You're correct, Bill. But a MOC probably wouldn't have to say "please" too many times right now to get his/her hands on a federally issued firearms permit allowing them to carry in DC, on planes, and in their home district (even if there is no legal carry in their district). Once you get a federal permit, knowing how Congressional retirement and health care benefits are extended way past your time in office, I could see a bunch of these guys carrying for the rest of their life. That's got to be a good thing for us.

Ole Coot said:

I was just thinking(bad thing) how are they going to legally carry in DC? I guess politicians don't have the same laws I must follow. I know when I worked in DC for many years the "elite" had personal bodyguards armed with full auto weapons. Pays to have money and the right name I guess.

Click to expand...

If you read the article, you would know that both would not be carrying in DC.

I'm glad these legislators have made this announcement and would be happier if they also refused to be a party to gun control restrictions introduced after the incident.

Per this Justice Department memorandum, members of Congress cannot be deputized, but congressional staff members can be.

-----

rfwobbly said:

...federally issued firearms permit...

Click to expand...

I have never heard of a federally issued firearms permit that was not associated with being a federal law enforcement officer; could you share more info.