(ReliableNews.org) – When the unrest on Capitol Hill unfolded on January 6, protesters quickly overwhelmed police officers present in the building. That has led to questions about why law enforcement didn’t have a better plan in place while a joint session of Congress, presided over by the United States’ vice president, was taking place. There are ongoing investigations into that failure, but in the meantime, Democrats on the Hill are using the incident to attack their Second Amendment-supporting colleagues.
On January 12, Capitol Hill police installed metal detectors outside of the House chamber on the orders of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). The security measure was allegedly put in place because of the incident a week before, but Republican lawmakers decried the change.
Members of the GOP said it was an effort by Pelosi to score political points. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) refused to allow officers to search her, saying she is “legally permitted” to carry her firearm. It’s true that lawmakers are exempt from the prohibition on guns in the building.
I am legally permitted to carry my firearm in Washington, D.C. and within the Capitol complex.
Metal detectors outside of the House would not have stopped the violence we saw last week — it’s just another political stunt by Speaker Pelosi.
— Rep. Lauren Boebert (@RepBoebert) January 13, 2021
They are allowed to carry their weapons everywhere but the chamber. Pelosi decided that she wasn’t going to work with her colleagues; instead, she doubled down.
The House speaker said that if lawmakers bypass the metal detectors, they will be fined. The first offense has a $5,000 price tag, and the second is $10,000. Pelosi said the fines will come out of the representatives’ paychecks.
Pelosi is clearly trying to punish the Second Amendment supporters in Congress. Not only that, but she is doing it when she undoubtedly knows that wouldn’t have stopped the events that took place the week before. The problem was not a lack of metal detectors, it was a lack of officers. So, what is the point of this rule change if it’s not to be unnecessarily punitive?
Copyright 2021, ReliableNews.org