Lautenberg to Introduce Legislation to Ban High-Capacity Magazines Post Sandy Hook

[democrattotheend]

Source: Huffington Post

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) will introduce legislation in the next Congress to ban the sale of high-capacity magazines, his office told The Huffington Post on Monday.

A longtime advocate for gun control legislation, the New Jersey Democrat has pushed similar bills in the past, most notably following the shooting of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and others in Tucson in 2010. They have failed to gather the necessary support to become law, though Lautenberg's office, like others on the Hill, feels that the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday has altered the political dynamics of the debate.

The legislation would simply reintroduce the prohibition of high-capacity magazines that existed under the federal Assault Weapons Ban from 1994 to 2004. In Tucson, the shooter Jared Loughner was able to fire 30-plus shots without having to reload. During the shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., the alleged shooter reportedly had a 100-round magazine drum. At Sandy Hook Elementary School, the alleged shooter also had high-capacity magazines.

Lautenberg's bill would be a pared-down iteration of gun control legislation for lawmakers to consider. A more ambitious proposal is set to be introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who has pledged to reintroduce the assault weapons ban the first day of the new Congress.


Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/gun-control-legislation-frank-lautenberg_n_2315618.html

---

Apparently less ambitious than Feinstein's bill, but maybe has a better chance of passing? Even Joe Manchin is saying there is no legit need in hunting for high capacity magazines.

I don't know much about guns, so can someone explain this? If there are no high capacity magazines, does that mean that fewer shots can be fired without reloading?

[Panasonic]

1. There is no need for high capacity magazine in a civilian setting.

unless you are planning a killing spree....

Which then should be under arrest and thrown into prison for 5-10 years.

Also, limit the number of magazines that the gunowners can have per gun - to only 2.

[freshwest]

3. +1. The military can keep them since they have a purpose for them.

[Panasonic]

2. See this guy rapidly reloading?

Takes less than one second to reload.

I suggest a limit of 2 magazines per gun. And it needs to be imprinted to accept the registered gun, or otherwise it's a rejection.

[ProgressoDem]

7. Well, that's one dude with a fast hand.

It'll make a difference with other shooters, I think, and save some lives.

[Recursion]

4. That's the only part of the assault weapons ban that isn't completely stupid

Combine it with a generous buyback program and it could work. Plus it would be some stimulus.

[LynneSin]

5. if I'm correct, the shooter from Tuscan AZ also had high-capacity magazines

You can get alot more killing done if you don't have to reload all the time.

[axetogrind]

6. Yes he did.

But those hi cap extended mags are notorious for jamming, which is what happened in Tucson, and because Loughner's gun jammed due to that mag, he was taken down while attempting to unjam the weapon.
The Aurora shooters rifle also jammed do to the extended mag.

[Dokkie]

8. Add that to a fully auto gun

and a stupid man like him would have wasted his rounds in 3s.