Lautenberg to revive gun control bill
December 17th, 2012
12:50 PM ET
7 years ago

Lautenberg to revive gun control bill

(CNN) - Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg plans to reintroduce legislation in the next Congress that would prohibit the sale of high-capacity magazines, his office confirmed Monday.

The senator from New Jersey is another member of the upper chamber with plans to put forth legislation limiting gun rights. Sen. Dianne Feinstein announced Sunday she'll reintroduce an assault weapons ban when Congress reconvenes in January.

- Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker

Following last week's deadly attack on a Connecticut elementary school, which left 20 children and six adults dead by the shots of a lone gunman, the debate over gun control has ramped up in the last few days, with some lawmakers pushing harder than in years past to take action.

Lautenberg's office made a similar pledge to reintroduce his bill earlier this year after the shooting at an Aurora, Colorado movie theater, though the senator did not specify when he would do it. The Huffington Post first reported Monday that Lautenberg will reintroduce the bill next Congress.

The senator initially brought forth his legislation in January 2011 after a gunman shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in the head and killed six people in Tucson. The bill, titled "Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act," was packaged with two other bills that addressed the selling of firearms or explosives. However, the legislation did not gain traction in the Senate.

The bill calls for a ban on the sale of magazines that could hold 10 or more rounds of ammunition–similar to devices used in Tucson and Newtown. These types of magazines were rendered illegal when the assault weapons ban was in place from 1994-2004, but Congress did not vote to renew the ban.

Feinstein's proposal, meanwhile, is more encompassing and would reinstate the entire assault weapons ban she originally helped champion.

"It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation, and the possession. Not retroactively, but prospectively. It will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets," she said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

The California senator added she believes the president will support the bill, which will also be introduced in the House.

Polling shows a majority of Americans favor such proposals. According to a CNN/ORC International Poll taken in August shortly after the Aurora shooting, 60% of Americans said they favored a ban on the sale of high-capacity magazines. Fifty-seven percent said they favor a similar ban on semi-automatic assault weapons.


Filed under: Connecticut • Frank Lautenberg • Gun rights
soundoff (35 Responses)
  1. truth, truth and more ttruth

    what democrat is going to propose the ban on mentally ill people??? all of these shootings were done by mentally ill people. how do laws not targeting them address the problem? ridiculous.

    December 17, 2012 12:55 pm at 12:55 pm |
  2. Deal or 'NO" deal....

    "Revive"?...Washinton's non-leaders from the White House to Congrtess are soooooooo good at "YAK-YAK-YAK" and once they all get back from their Xmas break all will be forgotten until next time.......

    December 17, 2012 01:03 pm at 1:03 pm |
  3. Pete

    It's not the high capacity clips but the weapon that's used..You can kill as many with multiple clips if you know how to POP clips in your weapon most gun owners will tell you that..And regular clips require less room and can be put in ammo belts if carrying multiple clips its that easy...Put more strengent guidelines on new purchases and psychological testing also should be implimented to make sure of the purchasers real intentions if for recreational or something different..Assault weapons should be banned because they're only used in the military and the NRA knows that so ban any type of auto,semiautomatic weapon unless a special licence is had...If you make it harder it'll curb people who want the weapon for negetive reasons giving them time to think before going out because of a sudden fit of anger letting them cool off and make jail time automatic if they get caught with a weapon illegally that'll make them think twice before using or getting one...

    December 17, 2012 01:10 pm at 1:10 pm |
  4. Borderless

    The argument has been made that blaming the availability of guns on this tragedy is akin to blaming the auto industry for car bombings. It's a ridiculous argument. Unlike cars, guns are designed for one purpose and one purpose only. They are not for show. They are not for target practice. They are not meant as a warning to others. No, guns exist only to take lives. That is their entire function. Guns are for killing.

    The widespread availability of guns means that a device intended to kill will inevitably end up in the hands of someone that will want to use it for its purpose to a tragic end. We see it time and time again.

    A nation that sanctions the widespread availability of guns is a nation that sanctions violence against its own people, and tragedies such as this are an inevitability.

    December 17, 2012 01:10 pm at 1:10 pm |
  5. rich

    Ronal Reagan released hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people during his terms and we've cut spending on the mentally ill ever since. The problems with the mentally ill are easily solved in a nation that cares, a nation that doesn't allow the murder of innocents on a daily basis.

    December 17, 2012 01:15 pm at 1:15 pm |
  6. Twitter- WELoobs

    ^ i agree with Truth.

    Also in my opinion assault rifles were not at fault. So what if it was an assault rifle. If it were a pistol with hollowpoint rounds, it would have killed anyone anyway. A bullet is a bullet and the guns were registered to his mother. It's not the registered gun owners fault or EVEN the guns fault. Its the person who shot the gun. Although what happened is aweful, if he were to have used a shot gun... the kids wouldnt exactly have a hole in them. More like chunks taken away from their bodies. It Really hurts me to even say,or even think of that but it is true. Assault rifle, shotgun, submachine gun, pistol, they are all guns and would do a massacre of their own. If he were shooting people 100 yards away and picking them off, then that would give a reason to get rid of assault weapons. As they are mean for mid to long range. Not short range, such as what happened. The only way to stop gun violence is to take every gun within every house. Although it will solve gun crimes... wait people can still illegally buy guns. Which are mostly used in illegal gun crimes. So although everyone wouldnt have a gun, people that get attacked by an assailant will have NO means to protect themselves. Guns are both protective and harmful. Us as a nation will never know a middle ground. HECK thing about congress and even the house. They cant even work together to have our country run in the right direction.

    December 17, 2012 01:23 pm at 1:23 pm |
  7. JD

    President Obama could have done this day 1. Super majority in the senate and control of the house. He was the one who lacked the political courage. He had 100% opportunity. We don't need a lecture from him. Only the man he sees in the mirror didn't show political courage. He could get $800 billion for a stimulus. Obamacare. But not this law? And I don't want to hear about "this is not the time" while the president saying it is.

    December 17, 2012 01:27 pm at 1:27 pm |
  8. behind enemy lines

    dead is dead, the question is who is responsible and who will be held accountable?

    December 17, 2012 01:27 pm at 1:27 pm |
  9. Unfortunately...

    We don't give the government that authority. Pass all the bills you want, but they will ignored, as the pot laws are. Thank you for opening up a new underground market for machine shops and smugglers. Oh, and it will take you decades to get rid of the 256 Million weapons already in existence.

    December 17, 2012 01:28 pm at 1:28 pm |
  10. walleye46

    Not only should these assault type guns be banned, but those that are currently owned MUST BE HANDED IN. I will gladly support a tax that would provide the govt. with money to pay a hand-it-in rebate.

    December 17, 2012 01:28 pm at 1:28 pm |
  11. ja

    where are the republicans on this gun control, how many citizens in quaint communities will have to die for them to support gun control, if you need a high powered automatic weapon, join ther militatry, even the hunting of wild game without intent to consume is outdated

    December 17, 2012 01:33 pm at 1:33 pm |
  12. GI Joe

    No rule will prevent someone from stealing one of YOUR weapons and killing YOU with it. Maybe break in while you're at the store and wait for you.

    One of my reltives is getting kinda senile and it's scarey that he has 27 guns around his house - what if he loses his mind and starts shooting at everyone? He isn't mentally ill. He didn't fall thru the cracks. THINK

    December 17, 2012 01:35 pm at 1:35 pm |
  13. NATHAN WIMBERLY

    About time to neuter the NRA.

    December 17, 2012 01:36 pm at 1:36 pm |
  14. Rudy NYC

    Licensed gun owners should be held fully accountable to who has access to their guns. Only license holders should operate a gun. If I loan my car keys to someone without a driver's license, then I am committing a crime. Yet, if I loan my gun to someone without a gun license, then I am not committing a crime.

    December 17, 2012 01:36 pm at 1:36 pm |
  15. Davis

    Bring it!!! These old crags will fail, fail, fail.
    An armed people are "citizens".
    An unarmed people are "subjects".
    What do you think these globalists want? Not hard to figure out.

    December 17, 2012 01:38 pm at 1:38 pm |
  16. Gurgyl

    We did not listen to BCBS-we are not going to listen to NRA idiots. Pass GUN-BAN LAWS. Have guts. 2nd amendment is stupid and RUSTY. Go for it.

    December 17, 2012 01:44 pm at 1:44 pm |
  17. truth, truth and more ttruth

    rich
    Ronal Reagan released hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people during his terms and we've cut spending on the mentally ill ever since. The problems with the mentally ill are easily solved in a nation that cares, a nation that doesn't allow the murder of innocents on a daily basis.
    ----
    total lies. the mentally ill were released by the aclu which protected their rights and endangered the rest of society in the process. the care of the mentally ill is not easily solved. it involves far more than spending money. it requires a sane person to take charge and do what needs to be done, whether that means treatment or commitment. problem is how do you predict who will turn violent and who will not? that is impossible. bottom line, there are no guarantees in life so stop looking for them or trampling others rights in pursuit of them.

    December 17, 2012 01:46 pm at 1:46 pm |
  18. Tim

    If laws against murder don't prevent murder, why would people think that laws against guns would fare better? Do laws against drugs stop people from possessing and using drugs? Then why do they expect laws against guns will stop people from possessing and using guns? On the contrary, laws against drugs have caused more death in the drug war than the drugs themselves. Laws against freedom are counterproductive!

    If a criminal is a person who does not obey laws, then what purpose does laws against guns serve but to create more defenseless law abiding citizens and opportunities for criminals to commit crime against them? Criminals prefer defenseless victims, like a schoolhouse full of children and unarmed teachers. It is laws against guns that made those teachers powerless to protect themselves and those children.

    People have been killing people since the beginning of time, long before guns, and they've gotten good at using whatever tools they've had available to them at any given era. Murderers don't murder people because guns of any sort make it convenient, they kill people for whatever mental reason they have for wanting them dead. You can never ban all weapons, and you can't ban a person's desire to kill.

    "They who can give up essential liberty [Second Amendment] to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Ben FranklinTim

    December 17, 2012 01:47 pm at 1:47 pm |
  19. Sniffit

    "What do you think these globalists want? Not hard to figure out."

    "globalists "? Haha. Now now...don't hide behind rhetoric like "not hard to figure out." Please, treat us to a diatribe about "black helicopters" from the UN and NATO establishing a "New World Order" etc.etc. It's hilarious when you guys go on those rants.

    December 17, 2012 01:52 pm at 1:52 pm |
  20. BILL, WI

    Congress should sit down and, for once, actually develop a comprehensive plan, rather than this inane drip, drip, drip of a mish mash of special pet projects disguised as a plan.

    December 17, 2012 01:53 pm at 1:53 pm |
  21. Gurgyl

    @Borderless

    The argument has been made that blaming the availability of guns on this tragedy is akin to blaming the auto industry for car bombings. It's a ridiculous argument. Unlike cars, guns are designed for one purpose and one purpose only. They are not for show. They are not for target practice. They are not meant as a warning to others. No, guns exist only to take lives. That is their entire function. Guns are for killing.

    The widespread availability of guns means that a device intended to kill will inevitably end up in the hands of someone that will want to use it for its purpose to a tragic end. We see it time and time again.

    A nation that sanctions the widespread availability of guns is a nation that sanctions violence against its own people, and tragedies such as this are an inevitability.
    ----------------------------------
    You would think differently if someone broke into your house and robbed you at gunpoint. They break into my house, I WILL kill them with no remorse.

    December 17, 2012 01:55 pm at 1:55 pm |
  22. ezduzit757

    Gun enthusiasts just don't get it. I'm so tired of hearing how guns are not the cause of violence. How guns don't kill people, people kill people. People WITH GUNS kill people. Guns may not be cause of violence, but they are the TOOL of violence. Are there other tools? Of course, but guns are the tool of choice because they are easy to get and easy to use and glorified in our society. Yes, society, mental illness, violence on TV and in video games blah, blah blah are causes of violence, but what guns do is make that violence EASY to perpetrate on others. If a sick individual wanted to kill, would he go to a school with a knife? A sword? Less likely, but even if he did, would the toll be so high? After Virginia Tech and Aurora these nutcase gun enthusiasts were advocating that if only all the students or audience members had guns, they could have defended themselves. What now? Will they advocate that first graders should all carry guns??!!! That their teachers should keep them in their desk drawers?? It's time to stop pussyfooting around the issues. Guns are a problem that need to be addressed. As does violence on tv and in video games, the treatment of the mentally ill and teaching good morals, etc, but all of these things take time. These mass shootings are an issue that needs to be attacked now, on all fronts – INCLUDING the easy accessibility of Guns.

    December 17, 2012 01:55 pm at 1:55 pm |
  23. higgs boson

    here's (part of ) the problem...a person can be totally sane when they buy a gun, but 5 years later (or 5 days later) they may be insane and we don't want them to have access to guns

    December 17, 2012 01:56 pm at 1:56 pm |
  24. myviewis

    What about the Pro-Union leader threatening the Governor that if he signed the bill they would show up at his daughter's soccer game, show at his church and he even gave out the Governor's home address and threaten they would show up at his home, isn't this also violence??????? Violence with a gun, violence by showing up to a child's soccer game, a home, church is still violence.

    December 17, 2012 01:58 pm at 1:58 pm |
  25. Rudy NYC

    truth somebody wrote:

    what democrat is going to propose the ban on mentally ill people??? all of these shootings were done by mentally ill people. how do laws not targeting them address the problem? ridiculous.
    ----------
    Actually, the Republians banned, or rather "cured", the mentally ill by cutting their budgets and declaring them sane enough to be released into the general populations. With a single slash of the pen, they got rid of and "banned" significant numbers of mentally ill patiients.

    December 17, 2012 01:58 pm at 1:58 pm |
1 2