beaming down over his shoulder as he signed it, nearly two dozen states have followed with their own laws. the nra wants this to be a federal regulation that would force this on states that don t want it. all the changes in law go in the same direction. all the laws go to more guns in more places. once one state stakes out radical ground, as soon as one state clears that ground like florida did in 2005, all the other states rush toward that newly cleared law. i thought after tucson we could have one tiny little tick toward regulates just the size of the magazines for ammunition in handguns. as a tiny correction for a nation that was shocked by the
congressman joe barton would likely become chairman of the key house committee overseeing health care. he says hearings will begin as soon as january to dismantle the law. if we re given the opportunity to be in the majority, we are going to try to repeal it. and then replace right away? with something that makes sense. well, the sooner the better. reporter: that threat comes as new portions of the law go in effect this week, provisions that stop insureds from denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions or dropping policies for people who get sick. big expansion of coverage don t come until 2014. still, recent polls show the law remains unpopular. i voted against the health care bill because i thought it would be too expensive. reporter: even some democrats are running against it. health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius argues the law will come around. why is the law so unpopular? i think it s more confusing than unpopular. you ll grant that
illegally. we re going to send out posse and deputy sheriff s. if we come across any people here pursuant to our duties, we re going to arrest them, turn them over to i.c.e. or book them into our jails. but if there are already programs under which local police can help enforce federal law, why do you need this arizona law? well, this law that the part she struck out so far, when we come across an illegal immigrant, i was hoping that we could arrest that person under that misdemeanor law in lieu of turning them over to i.c.e. right now we ll keep turning them over to i.c.e. we will do our duties, doing our enforcement. if we come across any illegal aliens, we re going to do what we ve been doing three years, enforcing the human smuggling law, state laws. we ve been doing it. 40,000 people, we have arrested, detained or investigated in our jails. i would like to have seen this law go through but we re still going to do what we have been doing. why would you prefer to hold
that misdemeanor law in lieu of turning them over to i.c.e. right now we ll keep turning them over to i.c.e. we will do our duties, doing our enforcement. if we come across any illegal aliens, we re going to do what we ve been doing three years, enforcing the human smuggling law, the employer sanction law. those are both state laws. we ve been doing it. 40,000 people, we have arrested, detained or investigated in our jails. i would like to have seen this law go through but we re still going to do what we have been doing. why would you prefer to hold them in your jails as opposed to just turning them over to federal immigration authorities? because under current law, you can just turn the illegals over to federal immigration authorities and, therefore, not incur the expense of putting them in jails, right, which the new law would require. i don t care about expense. i have tents. very cheap to put them in tents, if they re convicted.
misdemeanor law in lieu of turning them over to i.c.e. but right now, we ll keep turning them over to i.c.e. we will do our duties, doing our enforcement. if we come across an illegal alien, we re going to do what we ve been doing for four years, enforcing the human smuggling laws. we ve been doing it. 40,000 people we have arrested, detained, investigated and are in our jails. i would like to see this law go through but we re still going to do what we ve been doing. why would you prefer to hold them in your jail as opposed to turning them over to federal immigration authorities? under current law you can turn the illegals over to federal immigration authorities and, therefore, not incur the expense of putting them in jails, right, which the new law would require? i don t care about expense. i have tents, very cheap to put them in tents if they re convicted. when we stop someone and there s a violation of the law, regardless of if there s a criminal violation, they re here