Skip to comments.Judge in Gabby Giffords trial calls for assault weapons ban
Posted on 12/21/2012 6:55:00 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
The federal judge who sentenced former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' gunman is advocating a nationwide ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines to take the "mass out of mass shootings." "There is just no reason civilians need to own assault weapons and high-capacity magazines," Judge Larry Allan Burns wrote in Thursday's Los Angeles Times.
Since Jared Lee Loughner killed six people and wounded Giffords with his 31-round magazine Glock pistol, there have been six deadlier mass shootings, Burns wrote.
"But reasonable, good-faith debates have boundaries, and in the debate about guns, a high-capacity magazine has always seemed to me beyond them," he wrote.
He noted that Adam Lanza used a semiautomatic rifle with a 30-round magazine to slaughter 20 first-graders and 6 staffers at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
James Holmes, the accused gunman in the Aurora, Colo., movie theater massacre that left 12 people dead and 58 others wounded, used a rifle with a 100-round drum, he added.
While admitting it might not prevent the next crazed gunman from going on a rampage, Burns said taking away high-capacity magazines could cut down on casualties.
"We might be able to take the 'mass' out of 'mass shooting,' or at least make the perpetrator's job a bit harder," wrote Burns, adding that he is a gun owner and a conservative appointed to the federal bench by former President George W. Bush.
Burns suggested that at a minimum the federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 should be brought back "with some teeth this times."
"Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines," he wrote.
"Don't let people who already have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market," he suggested, referring to two provisions in the old assault weapons ban. "I don't care whether it's called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it."
Another commie judge sweating that he’ll be hanged from a lamppost by men armed with rifles.
The number of innocents killed due to criminal misuse of firearms pales in comparison to the excesses of governments who exceed their authority.
This judge is calling for the dead of thousands.
This is a sitting federal judge who has stated a bias against the Second Amendment. Having stated that bias publicly, he should recuse himself from every case that involves firearms from now until doomsday...which obviously wasn’t today.
If not for Judges whom have no understanding of the rights they are sworn to protect or the fascist Governments that believe the same, he might have a case.... Right LOL!
An AR-15 has no more functionality than a Colt .45 Model 1873 Single Action Revolver. It is true the the AR-15 legally has a magazine capacity of four more bullets, but who needs the extra bullet capacity when you want to cap some maniac trying to gun down shoppers? With both guns, each time you pull the trigger, the gun shoots one bullet. Why is such a function so controversial?
If we want to go with single shot technology, I will go with my .50 muzzle loader. Fifty caliber can take off a leg.
Actually I find that part particularly ironic. By all rights Loughner should have been locked up as a public menace long before this happened. The justice system shirked it's responsibility because of his relationship to a public official. That made him our problem, and if they're going to make him our problem we're entitled to the tools we deem fit to deal with it. IMHO.
When it comes to guns, the Left is completely irrational -- even hysterical.
Their leadership isn't -- they know what they want: Control.
But the Useful Idiots who follow them go berserk at the mere mention of "gun". Seemingly, they've never been hunting, never been in the military, never handled one. As a consequence, what a ten year old farm boy would consider a "varmint gun" a suburban housewife would consider a "scary assault weapon" -- followed by shrieks of fear.
Kryptonite, in .22 caliber.
There's just no accounting for liberal ignorance.
Very apt quote.
Do these idiots have any idea how fast a person can change a magazine with a bit of practice?
Guess that is why we have them. Weren’t the Brits out to take the colonists weapons at Lexington and Concorde? The royal class never learns.
Is he the judge who handed a SWAT team permission to fill Jose Guerena with bullet holes in his house with his wife and toddler watching?
Yet another Bush appointee?
That name always seems to pop up.
>> “There is just no reason civilians need to own assault weapons and high-capacity magazines,” Judge Larry Allan Burns wrote in Thursday’s Los Angeles Times.
Interesting positioning of “just”.
I can think of one just reason civilians should continue to have the right.
This judge is a joke.
Judges get courthouses declared as “gun free zones” then give themselves an exemption to carry.
BTW, dipshit, the Conservative Federal judge also murdered by Loughner would likely disagree with this pathetic assessment.
“They want a war.” Why, yes RC one. Yes they do.
Imagine if the media we presented with the option to either exclude a shooter’s name in their print or broadcast media or face losing their FCC license or be jailed/fined...think they’d be upset on that “common sense” regulation on the 1st Amendment?
All including their name does is give them the infamy they seek.They’re aiding and abetting.
LEGAL PRIVATE PROPERTY, bought and paid for, and this nincompoop thinks it should be seized by the King’s men??? 1,000 + years of Anglo-Saxon common law right down the tubes, just like that, eh “Judge”?/s