Peter King

Uncategorized

Five Out Of 199 Doesn’t Make A Bill “Bipartisan”

January 10, 2019 by

Now that HR 8 – the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 – has been posted to the Library of Congress website we can see who is listed as a co-sponsor. Five Republicans out of 199 Republican House members in the 116th Congress doesn’t really qualify the bill to be called “bipartisan”. It is a semantics game played by both parties and it is equally misleading whichever party sponsors a bill.

Here are the five Republicans who are co-sponsoring the bill:

Rep. King, Peter T. [R-NY-2]


Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-1]


Rep. Mast, Brian J. [R-FL-18]


Rep. Upton, Fred [R-MI-6]


Rep. Smith, Christopher H. [R-NJ-4]

King, Fitzpatrick, Mast, and Upton were all co-sponsors of a similar bill, HR 4240, in the prior Congress. 

Uncategorized

HR 1506: A Bill That Needs To Go Nowhere (Updated With Text)

April 16, 2011 by 13 Comments

Rep. Peter King (R-NY-3) introduced HR 1506 yesterday. It is titled a bill to “To increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.”

I am guessing – and it is only a guess – that this bill is the House version of Sen. Frank Lautenberg’s S 34 – Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2011. The language of King’s bill is not yet available. However, the purpose of the Lautenberg bill is exactly the same as the preliminary title of HR 1506, so I think it is fair presumption.

The 11 co-sponsors are your usual cast of anti-gunners along with one NRA C-ranked Country Club Republican (Lance) thrown into the mix.

Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5]
Rep Chu, Judy [CA-32]
Rep Deutch, Theodore E. [FL-19]
Rep Doyle, Michael F. [PA-14]
Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17]
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12]
Rep Lance, Leonard [NJ-7]
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC]
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15]
Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1]
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30]

While the bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, it will probably get more attention than it deserves because King is the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. The bill should be consigned to the dustbin of history but it probably will get some traction thanks to King’s sponsorship of it.

Republican or not, Peter King is no friend of gun owners and made plenty of stupid remarks in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings. His HR 496 would create a 1000 foot “gun-free bubble” around “high-ranking government officials” which, of course, includes Congressmen. If he were a Republican from the Mid-West, the South, or even California, I doubt he could get away with some of the stuff he has said. However, he represents a Long Island district that adjoins the district of Carolyn McCarthy and stupidly confuses gun control with anti-terrorism measures.

UPDATE: The bill now has 14 co-sponsors and the text has been released. The text of HR 1506 is not word for word the same as Sen. Frank Lautenberg’s S. 34 but it is pretty damn close.

In essence, you can be accused of international or domestic terrorism by some unknown accuser and then be turned down for a firearms purchase. If the Attorney General deems it in the interest of “national security”, then he doesn’t need to even tell you why you were denied and you are prohibited from suing to seek answers. This law would strip you of your right to due process.

Here is the text of the bill as reported by the Government Printing Office.

A BILL

To increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2011′.

SEC. 2. GRANTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THE AUTHORITY TO DENY THE SALE, DELIVERY, OR TRANSFER OF A FIREARM OR THE ISSUANCE OF A FIREARMS OR EXPLOSIVES LICENSE OR PERMIT TO DANGEROUS TERRORISTS.

(a) Standard for Exercising Attorney General Discretion Regarding Transferring Firearms or Issuing Firearms Permits to Dangerous Terrorists- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended–

(1) by inserting the following new section after section 922:

`Sec. 922A. Attorney General’s discretion to deny transfer of a firearm

`The Attorney General may deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii) if the Attorney General determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.’;

(2) by inserting the following new section after section 922A:

`Sec. 922B. Attorney General’s discretion regarding applicants for firearm permits which would qualify for the exemption provided under section 922(t)(3)

`The Attorney General may determine that an applicant for a firearm permit which would qualify for an exemption under section 922(t) is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the applicant may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.’; and

(3) in section 921(a), by adding at the end the following:

`(36) The term `terrorism’ means `international terrorism’ as defined in section 2331(1), and `domestic terrorism’ as defined in section 2331(5).

`(37) The term `material support’ means `material support or resources’ within the meaning of section 2339A or 2339B.

`(38) The term `responsible person’ means an individual who has the power, directly or indirectly, to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of the applicant or licensee pertaining to firearms.’.

(b) Effect of Attorney General Discretionary Denial Through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) on Firearms Permits- Section 922(t) of such title is amended–

(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(ii), by inserting `or State law, or that the Attorney General has determined to deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922A’ before the semicolon;

(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting after `or State law’ the following: `or if the Attorney General has not determined to deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922A’;

(3) in paragraph (3)(A)(i)–

(A) by striking `and’ at the end of subclause (I); and

(B) by adding at the end the following:

`(III) was issued after a check of the system established pursuant to paragraph (1);’;

(4) in paragraph (3)(A)–

(A) by adding `and’ at the end of clause (ii); and

(B) by adding after and below the end the following:

`(iii) the State issuing the permit agrees to deny the permit application if such other person is the subject of a determination by the Attorney General pursuant to section 922B;’;

(5) in paragraph (4), by inserting after `or State law,’ the following: `or if the Attorney General has not determined to deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922A,’; and

(6) in paragraph (5), by inserting after `or State law,’ the following: `or if the Attorney General has determined to deny the transfer of a firearm pursuant to section 922A,’.

(c) Unlawful Sale or Disposition of Firearm Based on Attorney General Discretionary Denial- Section 922(d) of such title is amended–

(1) by striking `or’ at the end of paragraph (8);

(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (9) and inserting `; or’;

(3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:

`(10) has been the subject of a determination by the Attorney General pursuant to section 922A, 922B, 923(d)(1)(H), or 923(e) of this title.’.

(d) Attorney General Discretionary Denial as Prohibitor- Section 922(g) of such title is amended–

(1) by striking `or’ at the end of paragraph (8);

(2) by striking the comma at the end of paragraph (9) and inserting; `; or’; and

(3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:

`(10) who has received actual notice of the Attorney General’s determination made pursuant to section 922A, 922B, 923(d)(1)(H), or 923(e) of this title.’.

(e) Attorney General Discretionary Denial of Federal Firearms Licenses- Section 923(d)(1) of such title is amended–

(1) by striking `Any’ and inserting `Except as provided in subparagraph (H), any’;

(2) in subparagraph (F)(iii), by striking `and’ at the end;

(3) in subparagraph (G), by striking the period and inserting `; and’; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:

`(H) The Attorney General may deny a license application if the Attorney General determines that the applicant (including any responsible person) is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the applicant may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.’.

(f) Discretionary Revocation of Federal Firearms Licenses- Section 923(e) of such title is amended–

(1) in the 1st sentence–

(A) by inserting after `revoke’ the following: `–(1)’; and

(B) by striking the period and inserting a semicolon;

(2) in the 2nd sentence–

(A) by striking `The Attorney General may, after notice and opportunity for hearing, revoke’ and insert `(2)’; and

(B) by striking the period and inserting `; or’; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

`(3) any license issued under this section if the Attorney General determines that the holder of the license (including any responsible person) is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the applicant may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.’.

(g) Attorney General’s Ability To Withhold Information in Firearms License Denial and Revocation Suit- Section 923(f) of such title is amended–

(1) in the 1st sentence of paragraph (1), by inserting `, except that if the denial or revocation is pursuant to subsection (d)(1)(H) or (e)(3), then any information on which the Attorney General relied for this determination may be withheld from the petitioner if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security’ before the period; and

(2) in paragraph (3), by inserting after the 3rd sentence the following: `With respect to any information withheld from the aggrieved party under paragraph (1), the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security.’.

(h) Attorney General’s Ability To Withhold Information in Relief From Disabilities Lawsuits- Section 925(c) of such title is amended by inserting after the 3rd sentence the following: `If receipt of a firearms by the person would violate section 922(g)(10), any information which the Attorney General relied on for this determination may be withheld from the applicant if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security. In responding to the petition, the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security.’.

(i) Penalties- Section 924(k) of such title is amended–

(1) by striking `or’ at the end of paragraph (2);

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `, or’ and inserting `; or’; and

(3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:

`(4) constitutes an act of terrorism (as defined in section 921(a)(36)), or material support thereof (as defined in section 921(a)(37)), or’.

(j) Remedy for Erroneous Denial of Firearm or Firearm Permit Exemption- Section 925A of such title is amended–

(1) in the section heading, by striking `Remedy for erroneous denial of firearm’ and inserting `Remedies’;

(2) by striking `Any person denied a firearm pursuant to subsection (s) or (t) of section 922′ and inserting the following:

`(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), any person denied a firearm pursuant to section 922(t) or pursuant to a determination made under section 922B,’; and

(3) by adding after and below the end the following:

`(b) In any case in which the Attorney General has denied the transfer of a firearm to a prospective transferee pursuant to section 922A or has made a determination regarding a firearm permit applicant pursuant to section 922B, an action challenging the determination may be brought against the United States. The petition must be filed not later than 60 days after the petitioner has received actual notice of the Attorney General’s determination made pursuant to section 922A or 922B. The court shall sustain the Attorney General’s determination on a showing by the United States by a preponderance of evidence that the Attorney General’s determination satisfied the requirements of section 922A or 922B. To make this showing, the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security. On request of the petitioner or the court’s own motion, the court may review the full, undisclosed documents ex parte and in camera. The court shall determine whether the summaries or redacted versions, as the case may be, are fair and accurate representations of the underlying documents. The court shall not consider the full, undisclosed documents in deciding whether the Attorney General’s determination satisfies the requirements of section 922A or 922B.’.

(k) Provision of Grounds Underlying Ineligibility Determination by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System- Section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Public Law 103-159) is amended–

(1) in subsection (f)–

(A) by inserting after `is ineligible to receive a firearm,’ the following: `or the Attorney General has made a determination regarding an applicant for a firearm permit pursuant to section 922B of title 18, United States Code’; and

(B) by inserting after `the system shall provide such reasons to the individual,’ the following: `except for any information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security’; and

(2) in subsection (g)–

(A) in the 1st sentence, by inserting after `subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code or State law’ the following: `or if the Attorney General has made a determination pursuant to section 922A or 922B of such title,’;

(B) by inserting `, except any information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security’ before the period; and

(C) by adding at the end the following: `Any petition for review of information withheld by the Attorney General under this subsection shall be made in accordance with section 925A of title 18, United States Code.’.

(l) Unlawful Distribution of Explosives Based on Attorney General Discretionary Denial- Section 842(d) of such title is amended–

(1) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (9) and inserting `; or’; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(10) has received actual notice of the Attorney General’s determination made pursuant to section 843(b)(8) or (d)(2) of this title.’.

(m) Attorney General Discretionary Denial as Prohibitor- Section 842(i) of such title is amended–

(1) by adding `or’ at the end of paragraph (7); and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:

`(8) who has received actual notice of the Attorney General’s determination made pursuant to section 843(b)(8) or (d)(2),’.

(n) Attorney General Discretionary Denial of Federal Explosives Licenses and Permits- Section 843(b) of such title is amended–

(1) by striking `Upon’ and inserting the following: `Except as provided in paragraph (8), on’; and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:

`(8) The Attorney General may deny the issuance of a permit or license to an applicant if the Attorney General determines that the applicant or a responsible person or employee possessor thereof is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation of, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the person may use explosives in connection with terrorism.’.

(o) Attorney General Discretionary Revocation of Federal Explosives Licenses and Permits- Section 843(d) of such title is amended–

(1) by inserting `(1)’ in the first sentence after `if’; and

(2) by striking the period at the end of the first sentence and inserting the following: `; or (2) the Attorney General determines that the licensee or holder (or any responsible person or employee possessor thereof) is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support thereof, and that the Attorney General has a reasonable belief that the person may use explosives in connection with terrorism.’.

(p) Attorney General’s Ability To Withhold Information in Explosives License and Permit Denial and Revocation Suits- Section 843(e) of such title is amended–

(1) in the 1st sentence of paragraph (1), by inserting `except that if the denial or revocation is based on a determination under subsection (b)(8) or (d)(2), then any information which the Attorney General relied on for the determination may be withheld from the petitioner if the Attorney General determines that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security’ before the period; and

(2) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following: `In responding to any petition for review of a denial or revocation based on a determination under section 843(b)(8) or (d)(2), the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security.’.

(q) Ability To Withhold Information in Communications to Employers- Section 843(h)(2) of such title is amended–

(1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting `or section 843(b)(1) (on grounds of terrorism) of this title,’ after `section 842(i),’; and

(2) in subparagraph (B)–

(A) by inserting `or section 843(b)(8)’ after `section 842(i)’; and

(B) in clause (ii), by inserting `, except that any information that the Attorney General relied on for a determination pursuant to section 843(b)(8) may be withheld if the Attorney General concludes that disclosure of the information would likely compromise national security’ before the semicolon.

(r) Conforming Amendment to Immigration and Nationality Act- Section 101(a)(43)(E)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(E)(ii)) is amended by striking ` or (5)’ and inserting `(5), or (10)’.

Uncategorized

HR 496 – Typical Overreaction To Tucson

February 4, 2011 by 2 Comments

HR 496 is Rep. Peter King’s bill that would create a gun-free zone around “senior Federal officials” who are conducting official business. That zone is 1,000 feet from the building in which they are, will be within 30 minutes, or left within the last 30 minutes.

Reading the details of the bill, it would seem that if I were driving down Interstate 240 in downtown Asheville and Rep. Heath Shuler was in his Asheville district office, I would be guilty of violating the law if I had a loaded firearm in the car unless I had Shuler’s permission.

Republicans like Peter King who are impressed with their own importance are the reason the GOP lost its majority in 2006. I find it interesting that none of his co-sponsors are Republicans. It seems some people – but not Mr. King – have a clue.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 26, 2011
Mr. KING of New York (for himself, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. RANGEL, and Ms. CHU) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

——————————————————————————–

A BILL
To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the carrying of a firearm near a place where a senior Federal official is holding an official public event or carrying out an official or representational duty, or where any person is campaigning for Federal elective office.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Securing Citizens’ Protection at Federal Events Act’.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CARRYING FIREARM NEAR A PLACE WHERE A SENIOR FEDERAL OFFICIAL IS HOLDING AN OFFICIAL PUBLIC EVENT OR CARRYING OUT AN OFFICIAL OR REPRESENTATIONAL DUTY, OR WHERE ANY PERSON IS CAMPAIGNING FOR FEDERAL ELECTIVE OFFICE.

(a) Prohibition- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(aa)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, to knowingly carry a firearm at a place which the person knows is a restricted firearms zone.

`(2) In a prosecution for an alleged violation of paragraph (1), it shall be an affirmative defense, which may be established by a preponderance of the evidence, that, at the time of the alleged violation–

`(A) the person was a law enforcement officer (whether on- or off-duty) authorized to carry a firearm in the line of duty; or

`(B) the person was carrying the firearm pursuant to the permission of a law enforcement officer;

`(C) the person was a designated Federal protectee;

`(D) the person had the permission of a designated Federal protectee in the restricted firearms zone to carry a firearm in the zone while the place that constitutes the zone is treated as such for purposes of this subsection;

`(E) the person was carrying the firearm only on the premises of a business in which the person is employed and authorized by the employer to carry the firearm;

`(F) the person was carrying the firearm only on real property owned or rented by the person;

`(G) the person was a qualified retired law enforcement officer (as defined in section 926C(c)) carrying the identification required by section 926C(d)); or

`(H)(i) the firearm possessed by the person was unloaded, and was in a locked container or otherwise not readily accessible for use; and

`(ii) any ammunition possessed by the person for the firearm was in a locked container separate from the firearm.

`(3) Violations of this subsection shall be investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistance may be requested from any Federal, State, or local agency, any statute, rule, or regulation to the contrary (other than section 374 or 375 of title 10, or section 1385 of this title) notwithstanding.’.

(b) Definitions- Section 921(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(36)(A) The term `restricted firearms zone’ means within 1,000 feet of the exterior of any building or structure in which, or at any other fixed place where–

`(i) a senior Federal official is, within 30 minutes will be, or within the past 30 minutes was–

`(I) holding an official event that is open to the public; or

`(II) carrying out an official or representational duty; or

`(ii) a designated Federal protectee is, within 30 minutes will be, or within the past 30 minutes was engaging in campaign activity as a candidate for election for Federal office for purposes of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.

`(B) In subparagraph (A), the term `designated Federal protectee’ means a senior Federal official, or an individual who is a candidate for election for Federal office for purposes of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.

`(C) In this paragraph, the term `senior Federal official’ means an individual who is the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President, or, if there is no Vice President, the officer next in the order of succession to the Office of the President of the United States, the Vice President-elect, any person who is acting as President under the Constitution and laws of the United States, a Member of Congress, a Member-of-Congress-elect, a member of the executive branch of the Government who is the head of a department listed in section 101 of title 5, the Director of Central Intelligence, a judge or justice of the Supreme Court or of any court created by Act of Congress (other than a magistrate judge appointed under section 631 of title 28, United States Code), an individual nominated for any of the foregoing positions, during the pendency of the nomination.

`(D) In subparagraph (C), the terms `President-elect’ and `Vice-President-elect’ mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the offices of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with sections 1 and 2 of title 3.’.

(c) Penalties- Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(aa) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.’.

Uncategorized

Is There Something Toxic In Long Island’s Water?

January 12, 2011 by

Something must be in the water of Long Island that causes politicians to say and do stupid things when it comes to firearms.

First, we have the Queen Bee of gun control, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY-4), saying that standard capacity magazines must be banned so we don’t have a repeat of the Tucson shooting. She goes on to say that if the “Assault Weapons Ban” (sic) had still been in place fewer people might have been shot. This is despite the AWB only banned the manufacture and/or importation of new magazines. Existing magazines were easy to find and buy.

Next we have Rep. Peter King (R-NY-3) whose district adjoins Mrs. McCarthy’s. He wants to create a gun-free zone of 1,000 feet around all high-ranking government officials. No word on how this could be done nor just who is considered a high-ranking government official. Speaker Boehner has indicated he would not support such a bill.

Finally, we have news today that Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY-5) has introduced a bill to close the “fire-sale loophole.” According to The Hill, the bill would require recently unlicensed gun dealers – that is those who have surrendered or lost their FFL – to still conduct background checks on all buyers as if they were still licensed. Ackerman, the story notes, has introduced this bill every session for a number of years. He says:

“After this weekend’s tragedy, it’s clear that Congress must close troubling loopholes in federal gun control laws that let firearms fall into the hands of convicted felons, fugitives, domestic violence perpetrators and severely emotionally disturbed individuals,” Ackerman said in a statement. “Every gun sold should require a background check, period.”

The story on this bill in The Hill does say that Jared Lee Loughner purchased his firearm through a licensed dealer and would not have been prevented from purchasing it with what this bill proposes. This does not prevent NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg from endorsing Ackerman’s bill.

“Pharmacists who lose their licenses can’t sell prescription drugs to people without prescriptions, yet gun dealers who lose their licenses can sell off their inventory — without even conducting background checks,” New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said in a statement endorsing Ackerman’s bill.

As I said earlier I don’t know what is in the water of Long Island that causes politicians to say and do stupid things when it comes to firearms. One thing I do know is that all three are engaging in shameless pandering to the press and to the gun control lobby. None of these bills would have stopped the tragedy in Tucson and none will keep either criminals or lunatics from obtaining a means to injure innocent people.