Giffords shootingProposals to enhance lawmakers' security questioned

The murder of Federal District Court Judge John Roll and five others as well as the attempted murder of Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-Arizona) has sparked many debates in Congress and prompted many Representatives to draft legislation that would increase security around members of Congress. Additionally, some local and state police departments have considered increasing security measures around members of Congress.

Oklahoma County Sheriff John Whetsel has offered police protection to members of Congress at town hall meetings and some members, such as Representative James Lankford have said they would accept the offer to provide a sense of security for people at town hall meetings. Lankford says he does not want fear to deter people from attending town halls. Other members, such as Representative Tom Cole (R-Oklahoma) feel incidents like the one in Tucson are extremely rare and do not require new levels of security. Cole and others also argue that enhanced police presence or other security measures might make some members of the public uneasy and prevent them from attending the meeting. These members also note that the aggravation factor of complying with security screenings will act to keep people away. Increased police protection also carries a price tag that many states and localities simply cannot afford due to financial insolvency of current programs. For these reasons, some localities said they had no plans to increase security or would consider requests for security from members on an individual basis rather than providing it by default.

One proposal in Congress by Representative Peter King (R-New York) would make it illegal to carry a firearm within 1,000 feet of a federal official. While the move has been praised by gun control advocates, critics of the firearm ban call the plan ridiculous, asserting that it is already illegal to shoot federal officials. They also argue that a person intent shooting a member of Congress will not likely care it is illegal to carry a gun near the person they plan to kill. In a more likely scenario, ordinary people who legally own guns will violate the law unintentionally since many people cannot identify their own representative in the House let alone the other 534 members of Congress or the almost 2,000 federal judges in the United States. One critic asked whether the proposal would prevent federal officials from going hunting with a friend; another noted that if the proposal became law, a citizen of the United States on a train legally carrying a fire arm would be in violation of the law through no fault of their own if a politician happened to get on the train. These critics argue that the plan would be a clear violation of Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms as the protection bubble would move with the official.

Yet another proposal is to erect a blast shield around the gallery in the House of Representatives and the Senate. This would seemingly only serve to insulate members from their constituents even more as anyone entering the Capitol building is screened before entering the building and screened for a second time before entering the gallery. There have also been calls by Representatives such as James Clyburn (D-South Carolina), the Number 3 ranking Democrat in the House, for the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine as false claims circulated that “that heated rhetoric” from the TEA Party was the motivation for Jared Loughner’s rampage.

While many ideas have been proposed, most experts seem to agree that a “lone lunatic” intent on murder will not likely be stopped by the security measures that lawmakers have suggested, just as terrorist Faisal Shahzad was not stopped by having to remove his shoes, belt, wallet, and keys, leaving all liquids in containers larger than 3.4 ounces at home before he boarded an airplane at JFK after attempting to detonate a bomb in Time Square.