Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey will bring back a bill he introduced after former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head to ban high-capacity gun magazines that allow shooters to fire off multiple rounds in quick succession.
Both the shooter who attacked a campaign event by then congresswoman Giffords in Tuscon, Ariz., and the killer who opened fire on an Aurora, Colo., movie theater last week carried such accessories.
An existing federal ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines was allowed to lapse in 2004.
While some in media and politics have argued that now is not the time to raise the issue of gun control given the tragedy is so fresh, Lautenberg disagrees.
"We need to start today on efforts to prevent the next attack," he said in a statement released Sunday. “No sportsman needs 100 rounds to shoot a duck, but allowing high-capacity magazines in the hands of killers like James Holmes and Jared Loughner puts law enforcement at a disadvantage and innocent lives at risk."
In addition to banning the sale of ammunition magazines with more than 10 rounds, Lautenberg has also proposed additional gun control measures aimed at preventing firearms and explosives from being sold to terrorists and to close a loophole in existing regulations that allows sellers to avoid running background checks on purchasers at gun shows.
The Colorado gunman's four-gun arsenal included an AR-15, semiautomatic assault rifle with a 100-round drum, the AP reported. This gun jammed, forcing the killer to turn to another of his guns, possibly reducing the number of deaths in the theater that night.
Giffords' attacker possessed a 30-plus-round magazine extender for his Glock.
Although the Giffords' tragedy and her well-documented recovery process has served as a reminder to her congressional colleagues about the power of firearms, the Lautenberg bill went nowhere last year. It was a similar story in the House of Representatives where gun control advocate Rep. Carolyn McCarthy introduced a similar bill to reinstate the ban on high-capacity magazines.
Leave a Comment:
Lautenberg is an idiot. In this incident, and the one in Tucson, the only such incidents where higher capacity magazines were an issue, both guns in which they were used jammed, probably because of the extra capacity magazines. In both cases this likely resulted in fewer casualties rather than more as a consequence of the high capacity magazines. In Tucson, the shooter was able to be tackled and disarmed when he went to clear his jammed gun, ending the shooting completely. Had they both been using lower capacity magazines, as Lautenberg would like, their guns would likely have continued to function properly and they would have killed even more people.
I have an AR-15 but unlike most people,I inherited most of the weapons I have.The last time it was out of the gun safe was to clean & lube it about 3 months ago.I have the standard magazine,as I have no need for a 100 round drum to obliterate a killer deer.(Yes,I'm being sarcastic)
The thought of taking out lots of people at a theater is abhorrent to me.Why would anyone,unless they where in a combat situation,have a need of such high capacity clips?
I would support a renewed ban on the magazines & the assault weapons.No responsible person would have the need for such.
This makes twice that this has happened.Screw the NRA,it's time to be adult about this subject instead of the unthinking knee-jerk reactions of the gun lobby & Right Wing Nut Jobs.
I agree with you entirely. We must get military assault rifles out of hands of civilans who have no need for them unless they are planning a terrorist attack on innocent civilians. These weapons should have been included in our laws governing the prevention of terrorist attacks after 9/11...It makes you wonder why they were not included as a possible terrorist threat.
Sheilanwp it is obvious that you do not know what you are talking about. How is an AR-15 a "Military Grade Assault Rifle"? The military versions of the AR-15 are called the M16 and M4 and they are selective fire weapons. What this means is that it has three modes of fire which are SAFE- Weapon cannot fire, SEMI- Weapon fires one round every time the trigger is pulled and last but not least BURST- Weapon fires three rounds every time the trigger is pulled. The AR-15 does not have the BURST mode of fire and it lacks the selective fire capability found on the military M16 and M4 both of which are not available for civilian purchase. I know this because I used both weapons in the military. So before you go on another misinformed rant take the time to research what you are talking about.
geekhillbilly...You are an idiot just like the senator. Its the fact that they take away this now and then they take away more next, then they take away the guns, then they take away the knives, then they take away the constitution altogether. It's idiots like you that will eventually cause the takeover of this country by an invading force like china.
As long as the NRA and the gun nuts who support them keep winning because of the power they have over our corrupt Congress the people of theUnited States will continue to lose. What is it with these gun morons?
the problem is not the guns or the mags. the problem was the person. if you think banning guns is going to make you safe your seriously wrong. drugs are illegal in this country and you can find them everywhere.
People are a variable that can't be controlled. Guns can. Anyone who argues that because new laws won't solve the problem entirely it's not worth doing exists in a fantasy world. Very few problems have one simple solution. Banning assault weapons is one part of a bigger solution. Greater access to treatment for the mentally ill is another. Problems this big get chipped away at not wiped away in one fell swoop.
An AR-15 is not an "assault rifle," it's a semi-automatic rifle that mechanically is no different than a semi-automatic hunting rifle. There is no such thing as a "military-grade" rifle or weapon either. A gun is a gun. Many "hunting rifles" are based off of military platforms. The AR-15 is a very popular hunting rifle for example. Real assault rifles (weapons with automatic fire capability) are already heavily-regulated, which didn't do squat regarding stopping the guys in the 1997 North Hollywood shootout from getting them.
The dreaded 'assault rifle' is used in roughly 0.2% of gun crime. Rifles in general only account for roughly 4% of gun crime. Amusingly, the rifle that prompted this, the AR-15, is most commonly chambered .223, a smaller and weaker cartridge than many commonly accepted hunting rifles use, and is actually less powerful than a good number of common handgun rounds. Simply put, an AR-15 isn't a very dangerous gun, and 'assault rifles' in civilian hands do not exist. In order to be an assault rifle, a gun must be a mid sized cartridge and be fully automatic. These guns are neither.
All of that notwithstanding, I would posit that most in favor of restrictions of 'military grade assault rifles' are simply uninformed, both as to what constitutes a military weapon and what the Right to Bear arms truly means. One need only ask the Libyans, or the Syrians, or the Iranians what their opinion on gun control is. Now, I'm not inclined to believe that the second amendment will need to be evoked in my lifetime or that or my children, but it would be immensely irresponsible to remove the ability of citizenry to defend themselves from a government threat when we cannot accurately predict the economy next week. How can we possibly claim there 'is no need' for these guns in civilian hands? How can we know what our government will be like in 50 years? In 100?
We say it will control crime, but it has been shown to have no effect. The more restrictive gun laws become, the stronger criminals become. France, Canada, Switzerland, and the UK all have dramatically higher rates of rape than America. The UK has passed us in every category of violent crime save gun crime. We do not protect our people when we disarm them. An empowered people is a people capable of enforcing the rule of law. A vast majority of guns are never brought to bear on another human being. These spree shootings are statistical outliers, and in no way indicative of either a problem with guns or a uniquely American problem. Knife massacres in China and terrorist bombings clearly illustrate what can be done without a gun.
The issue of gun violence will not be fixed via legislation, but education.