.
Feedback

Assault Weapon Restrictions First Target on New Congressman's Agenda

Eric Swalwell plans to co-sponsor an assault weapons ban as he gets ready to join the debate on the debt ceiling and Hurricane Sandy aid. Let the congressman know your views on these issues.

New congressman Eric Swalwell isn't waiting long to jump into an issue that is sure to bring him some heat.

The Dublin Democrat plans to co-sponsor a bill that places restrictions on private ownership of assault weapons.

It's the first bill Swalwell will put his name on. That legislation is expected to be introduced by mid-January.

It'll come just weeks after Swalwell and other members of the 113th Congress took their oath of office. It also is one of many politically charged issues the new representatives will debate.

Among them are the debt ceiling, aid for Hurricane Sandy victims and Swalwell's idea to set up a "mobile Congress."

What do you think about all these issues? Use the comments section to let your elected representatives how you'd like them to vote.

Swalwell will also be writing an occasional blog about his experiences in Washington.

Swalwell officially got down to business on Thursday when he and other members got sworn in. They first took the oath as a group on the House floor in the morning and then that afternoon got to individually take the oath again at a re-enactment with House Speaker John Boehner.

Swalwell said both ceremonies provoked different emotions. The House floor vote overwhelmed because as he looked around and saw 435 hands in the air, he realized the importance of the moment.

"I got hit by a semi-truck of emotions," said the 32-year-old congressman. "It was the realization we are designated with leading the country. It's a big responsibility."

The re-enactment had a different feel. He was surrounded by his parents, other family members, friends and constituents.

"That ceremony made me realize how many people it took to get this done," said Swalwell.

The new congressman was also appointed to the Homeland Security Committee and the Science and Technology Committee.

His first vote was in a losing cause. Swalwell joined other Democrats in casting their ballot for Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) for Speaker of the House. Boehner won re-election to that post.

Disarray in Congress

Last week, Democrats watched as Republicans fought internal battles over the speakership, fiscal cliff legislation and spending cuts. Some pundits are saying the Republican House members are in more disarray than ever.

"I think what we're seeing is far right extremists taking over the (Republican) caucus," said Swalwell.

That split showed up again when the House voted Friday on a relief package for Hurricane Sandy victims.

The original bill was for $60 billion in assistance, but some Republicans balked because they felt corresponding spending cuts should be made elsewhere.

The House ended up approving a $9.7 billion aid package for federal flood insurance participants on a 354-67 vote. All the "no" votes were Republicans. The remaining $51 billion is scheduled for discussion on Jan. 15.

Swalwell voted in favor of Friday's bill and will vote "yes" on the $51 billion package, too.

He said it's the federal government's duty to help victims of natural disasters, no matter where they occur.

"We come together in these situations and it's usually bi-partisan," said Swalwell. "We have to assume there will be a need for San Francisco earthquake relief some day."

Assault Weapons Ban

The next major issue is expected to be assault weapon restrictions.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein is promising to introduce such a bill in the Senate. Swalwell says he will co-sponsor a House bill on the same topic.

Swalwell says as an Alameda County prosecutor he saw the impact assault weapons have on their victims. It's not just the number and size of the bullets, he says, it's the velocity at which they travel.

"When a person gets hit by assault weapons ammunition, they have no chance," he said. "There is no reason for civilians to carry military-style assault weapons."

Swalwell said he isn't afraid of the political heat he's bound to take from the National Rifle Association and Second Amendment fundamentalists.

"I'm more worried about people who become victims of gun violence," he said.

Swalwell also supports reforming the nation's mental health system and strengthening security at schools.

Debt Ceiling

Within 60 days, Congress will once again square off over the federal government's debt ceiling.

Swalwell plans to vote to raise that limit. He agrees with President Obama that this is for expenses the government has already rang up and we have an obligation to pay them.

However, after the vote, Swalwell said Congress needs to get serious about spending cuts, so the ceiling issue is no longer a factor.

"It's incremental government. We can't keep kicking the can down the road," he said.

Once option Swalwell wants to explore is raising the cap on Social Security tax payments. Right now, Social Security taxes are collected only on the first $110,000 a person earns. After that, no tax is paid.

Swalwell says that's a "regressive tax" and the cap should be raised to bring in more revenue for Social Security.

Mobile Congress

An idea being floated by Swalwell is to make the House more of a "mobile Congress."

With the technology available today, Swalwell says there is no reason to require Congressional representative to be physically present to conduct business.

He said members should be able to video conference and telecommute, so they can spend more time in their districts.

He wants to try the idea at the committee level first, then see if it can work on the House as a whole.

"The goal is to make Congress more accessible," he said. "It's time. It's the 21st century."

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Union City Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Tim January 8, 2013 at 10:18 pm
What a fool.... all rifle rounds travel faster than pistol rounds. The "looks" of the gun do not determine how powerful the ammunition is. It's not the velocity of the bullet that causes the damage to the target, it's the energy (measures in Ft-lbs). A standard.223 round from an AR-15 travels about 3750 ft/s and carries about 1125 ft-lbs of energy. Meanwhile, a .30-06 round from a bolt-action hunting rifle travels about 2900 ft/s and carries about 2800 ft-lbs of energy. Therefore, that .30-06 round would potentially cause MUCH more devastation to its target than the .223 round in the AR-15.
Mr. Swalwell should educate himself on firearms because he sounds utterly foolish. I am all for limiting magazines to 10 rounds but who the hell cares it the gun "looks" military STYLE or not? None of the rifles available for civilian purchase are actually military weapons. I could buy a car that looks like a Corvette, but if it has a 4 cylinder engine, it's not going to keep pace with the actual Corvette on the highway. Fortunately, Mr. Swalwell is part of the minority party in the US House and as such has ZERO clout to pass anything other than gas.
Keith Barros January 9, 2013 at 03:40 pm
Can someone tell us how many rounds per second come out of an assault weapon? You compared ONE type of assault round (standard .223) from ONE type of assault weapon (AR-15) to ONE type of round (30-06) from a bolt-action rifle. I doubt if your out-of-context comparison is true of every assault weapon compared to every single-shot rifle. Yes, a larger bullet would do more damage to its target. However, the 30-06 fired from a bolt-action rifle is usually fired by a hunter who is a skillful, well-practiced marksman who, usually, actually HITS the target. Even if he misses there is no point in having immediate, additional rounds available because the target has run away. On the other hand, an assault rifle can hit many people in seconds even if it were being fired by a cross-eyed jackass in a dust storm. So when I see some jackass with a military-style or military-looking assault weapon, I"m going to hit the deck if I am lucky enough to have time to do so.
I also believe that the VELOCITY of each of those many bullets is connected to the RANGE and the PENETRATION potential of the bullets. That allows them to travel farther, penetrate walls, and hit even more children while they sleep in their beds. If my statements are correct, a person with firearm knowledge like you would already know all this. That tells me that whether he is right or wrong, you just have congressman Swalwell in your cross hairs.
Edward January 9, 2013 at 03:49 pm
You do not emply a clip of 20 rounds of .223 ammo with a combined 22500 ft-lbs into a dear and you would have a problem hitting the dear at 200 yards. A 30-06 with a scope could put the Animal down with one shot. That is why the 30-06 or 304 are the weapons of hunders and the .223 are the weapons of killers. I used the M-16 with the .223 round in Viet Nam and it may be good in a firefight at close range but if you want a weapon that is "sporting" the M-14 with the 7.62 NATO round woulds be better plus it would be a better all around weapon. We license persons to drive a car, we issue pasports to travel but we do not issue licenses to own and opperate firearms. These are not TOYS and should not be sold and treated as Adult Toys. The .223 round has a tendency to tumble once it hits the target and it tears a large hole out the back. It is designed not to save the flesh for eating but to blow large, deadly holes in people. The 30-06 round passes right through and leaves a clean hole.
Tim January 9, 2013 at 04:45 pm
Keith, I stipulated that magazines on all semi-autos should be restricted to ten rounds. I wasn't comparing weapons, rather the difference calibers of ammunition. I'm not an expert on rifle ammunition but anyone concerned with "stopping power" is going to look at the ENERGY, not the velocity. "When a person gets hit by assault weapons ammunition, they have no chance," he said. "There is no reason for civilians to carry military-style assault weapons." Can someone please tell me what the hell "assault weapons ammunition" is, because I've never heard anyone walk into a gun shop and ask for it. My point is that the .223 Remington round is one of the SMALLEST rifle rounds. Yes, it's damaging, BUT the larger caliber cartridges like the .30-06 and countless others are much worse. Why do you think many jurisdictions already ban the 50 BMG? My point about Swalwell being an illiterate on firearms stands. I would hope he would educate himself on the matter rather than pick and choose which firearms to ban like Diane Feinstein did... by looking at pictures in a magazine.
Tim January 9, 2013 at 04:50 pm
Again, read above. Didn't I say I think magazines/clips should be limited to ten rounds? As someone who has handled a weapon you would know that one can reload in a matter of about 2 seconds so I'm not sure how much good it would do, but I have no problem with it. You are speaking in generalities on ammunition. Obviously you can be different loads in any caliber each would alter the physics, velocity and energy, but generally, the larger the caliber, the bigger the hole.
Tim January 9, 2013 at 04:57 pm
Velocity is connected to range and penetration, but NOT stopping power. This is why I choose a .45 ACP handgun over a 9mm. The 9mm round travels much faster and can go further than a .45 ACP round, but what good is it if it travels through the bad guy and doesn't displace its kinetic energy on the target?
Mr. Swalwell seems to think higher velocity equates to more damage to the target. He's wrong. Go ask your local police department if they still carry 9mm handguns. They will likely tell you no, they carry .40 s&w. Why would they do that since the 9mm has more velocity? Because the .40 s&w carries more kinetic energy and with it, more stopping power.
Tina January 9, 2013 at 06:08 pm
This is only a sample of what's ahead when Congress discusses gun control.
As for the other topics... I agree we are long overdue for a "mobile" congress. Get our representatives back amongst the people. Maybe then they will start dealing with matters that affect us on a daily basis. Its my opinion that withholding recovery funds from the people who went through Super Storm Sandy, is inhuman. Those people have suffered enough. The government has an obligation to Des help them ASAP.
Tina January 9, 2013 at 06:22 pm
The debit ceiling must be raised to pay the bills we already have. As a nation we have the same responsibilities as individuals. We must pay our bills. The next step is to bring spending under control, but not on the backs of the middle class.
Something needs to be done about the carnage caused by guns that's become too common. I don't have the answer. I hope someone finds it.
Tim January 9, 2013 at 07:30 pm
The problem with your argument is that the debt ceiling doesn't have to be raised to "pay the bills we already have". The federal government has enough money coming into the coffers to cover the military, interest on our debt, and all essential services. Sorry if we have to shut down the bureaucrats at the EPA, Dept of (No) Energy, Dept of Education (Illiteracy) etc. But, the bottom line is we will not default on our debt if the debt ceiling isn't raised and it's the only leverage the GOP has to stop you liberals from spending like drunken sailors.
Tina January 9, 2013 at 07:45 pm
Tim, I've noticed your comments on almost every article of every areas Patch edition. All seem to be negative, sometimes even hostile. For that reason I choose not to engage you in discussion. Have a good day.
Tim January 9, 2013 at 07:53 pm
Sorry if you don't like my general tone, but my response to your specific comment was not hostile or negative. It did, however, disprove the lie that liberals like yourself spread about the debt ceiling, which I guess is why you have nothing left to say. Sounds good to me.
Nadja Adolf January 9, 2013 at 10:21 pm
An "assault weapon" as legally defined discharges one round per trigger pull. So "how many rounds per second come out of an assault weapon", as asked by Keith, depends on how many times you can pull that trigger in one second.
The legal definition of an "assault weapon" does not refer to the select-fire military assault rifles; it is simply a legal definition of an ugly firearm. The Second Amendment is not about hunting animals; it is predicated on the intent of the founders that an armed citizenry would be the last check and balance over a government gone mad. For grins and giggles, you should go to a public library and look up the 1970s NYT front cover story on the Cato Institute study that Nixon commissioned. Mr. Nixon was considering cancelling the 1972 elections because of the chaos in the streets, the rioting, etc. The Cato Institute advised him that this would be a very bad idea since there were literally millions of Americans with *unregistered* firearms that could not be easily confiscated, and they might take strong exception to someone cancelling the presidential election and remaining unelected in the Oval Office. Other fun things to read about are armed resistance to Klan state and local governments in some southern bastions as New Jersey, Oregon, Indiana and Colorado in the 1910s-1920s. My family literally had to fight a shooting war against Klansman attempting to lynch my great-grandfather and his son-in-law, my grandfather.
Nadja Adolf January 9, 2013 at 10:32 pm
We hear about Luby's Cafeteria, we hear about Newton. We don't here about the restuarant in Anniston, Alabama, Appalachian Law School, or the Clackamas Mall. Te reason we don't hear about the latter three is that large death tolls were prevented by legally armed citizens who confronted the intended spree killer and stopped him. Nick Meli, a legally armed citizen carrying a semi-automatic pistol confronted the Clackamas Mall killer outside a crowded Macy's Home Store. Mr. Meli was unable to fire because patrons in the home store were behind the spree killer; however, when the spree killer became aware that Mr. Meli was armed and was prepared to shoot him he turned away from the crowded store and went down a staircase where he committed suicide with his stolen firearm.
Nadja Adolf January 9, 2013 at 10:36 pm
All Mr. Swalwell and friends emotionally driven legislation will do is disarm the citizenry while permitting criminals to remain armed with weapons that are already illegal. The reason he uses the term "military style" is that the definition of an "assault weapon" is based on an ugly appearance, not function. Criminals have no problems obtaining all of the drugs and weapons they could possibly want.
No more Nick Melis, no more armed defenders, and more "gun free" zones for criminals to exploit.
Tim January 9, 2013 at 10:55 pm
This is why I am NEVER going to give up my guns... because the bad guys will always have them. Last night in Madera, armed gang members stormed into a pharmacy shooting immediately upon entry. Police think robbery was the motive. Can one of you liberals tell me what would have happened had the owner not had a gun to return fire? Fortunately, the owner was armed and was able to save his life and the life of his mother. THAT is gun control... being able to hit a target that is shooting at you. This is also why you need a semi-automatic, because oftentimes there is more than one thug involved. And, as a bonus, there is one less cockroach out there terrorizing the Central Valley. http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/01/09/3127388/fresno-man-was-gunman-in-madera.html
Keith Barros January 10, 2013 at 01:06 am
I meant an automatic assault weapon.
Tim January 10, 2013 at 02:43 am
Well, unless you're active military deployed, you won't be getting your hands on a full auto weapon... unless you have hundreds of thousands of dollars to jump through the ATF hoops. There is already a de facto ban on all full auto weapons.
Thanks Nadja for educating Keith. I overlooked that remark he made. Apparently Keith thinks the Bill of Rights is a "Bill of Needs". For example, maybe Keith should just keep his mouth shut.... he doesn't "need" a right to free speech.
Edward January 10, 2013 at 05:11 am
The owner of the Fremont Coin Gallery, Ron Miller, had an AR- 15 displayed on a beam above the back of the sales counter. When robers came in, they shot him dead before he could even reach for the weapon. Owning a firearm does not give you a better chance of surviving if they are going to rob you. Having good records and insurance will protect you more than a gun because they will leave with the loot and not your soul.
Nadja Adolf January 10, 2013 at 05:26 am
Keith - full automatics are already banned in almost all of the states. This does not stop criminals from obtaining them - for example, the individual who attacked the LA area Jewish community center stole his from the military at Fort Lewis. He also bypassed the Seattle Jewish center when he discovered it had armed security; and he avoided the one in Portland because it had been publicized that there were staff who had concealed carry permits.
In other words, he drove over a thousand miles to find a "gun free zone" in which to commit murder.
Nadja Adolf January 10, 2013 at 05:39 am
First, a firearms lesson. AR-15 mounted on the wall is not the same as having an available firearm for use. In close quarters a pistol is preferred as the attacker may grab the barrel of a rifle of shotgun.
Second, it appears that poor Mr. Miller was killed almost immediately upon the entry of his killers. This suggests to me that Mr. Miller was killed by a disgruntled customer or someone else that he could identify. In an event such as happened to poor Mr. Miller, the killers obviously intended to kill him from the start since they apparently walked in and shot him immediately. There is very little that one can do in such an incident, if one is alone - perhaps the most chilling case I know of is the women working in a convenience store in Lane County, Oregon, where my brother and other nurses used to stop on the way to work. A robber came in and killed them even though they complied in every way with his demands. The nurses were very shaken to see these women brought in dead when they had seen them alive and chatted with them only a few hours earlier. However, the case of Mr. Miller does not negate the nearly one million effective self-defense uses of firearms every year in the United States.
Nadja Adolf January 10, 2013 at 05:45 am
It seems poor Mr. Miller was killed almost immediately upon the entry of his killer(s.) This suggests to me that Mr. Miller was killed by a disgruntled customer or someone else that he could identify. This is unfortunately not rare in robberies. The DOJ statistic quoted misleadingly as "a friend or loved one" actually means an acquaintance - a definition which includes someone who has been into a store before to check out how to best rob it. (It also includes members of rival gangs.)
The killers obviously intended to kill him from the start since they apparently walked in and shot him immediately. Owning a firearm that isn't ready for immediate use won't save you - hanging on the wall isn't accessible. The most chilling case I know of is the women working in a convenience store in Lane County, Oregon, where my brother and other nurses used to stop on the way to work. A robber came in and killed them even though they complied in every way with his demands. The nurses were very shaken to see these women brought in dead when they had seen them alive and chatted with them only a few hours earlier. However, the case of Mr. Miller does not negate the nearly one million effective self-defense uses of firearms every year in the United States.
Tim January 10, 2013 at 06:32 am
Edward, tell that to Madera pharmacy owner Brian Lee who was working when armed thugs stormed in shooting. He was armed and was able to fire back and kill one of the thugs. He was able to save his life and his mothers life all because he DID have a gun. Was he lucky, absolutely. Could he still have been killed, of course. But you'd have to be a complete fool to think he'd have been better off without a gun. I would expect better logic from someone who's allegedly served in the military.
Update from CBS Fresno... http://www.cbs47.tv/news/local/story/Second-Suspect-Arrested-in-Madera-Pharmacy/uHGppWKoGkaNN49j6WRisQ.cspx Lee who is ex military carries a .45. And is glad he had his gun. “Of course because the Madera Chief said if it weren't for that, we'd be two corpses,” Lee said.
Tim January 10, 2013 at 06:40 am
Technically Nick Meli was legally armed and in no violation of state law in OR, however, that mall was a posted "gun free zone" with "no firearms" signs (they don't carry force of law) so it's possible the shooter expected a bunch of unarmed sitting ducks and probably crapped himself when confronted by someone else with a gun. These cowards have a common theme of choosing places where they are assured no one will have a concealed weapon on their person to return fire.
Country Mouse January 13, 2013 at 03:31 am
I have found the same similarities that you suggest. Interesting.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Nika Megino (Editor) May 30, 2013 at 10:45 am
When is Kid's Night Out?
Pacific West Gymnastics June 8, 2013 at 09:18 am
Hey Nika, Sorry for the delay. We offer Kid's Night Out 1 to 2 times per month. We have oneRead More tonight, actually! Our full schedule is on our website (http://pacwestgymnastics.com/camps-events/kids-night-out/). Thanks!