The city of St. Paul has taken a step towards cracking down on high-capacity magazines and military-style assault weapons in the wake of the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut that claimed the lives of 26 children and adults.
The city amended a legislative request to state lawmakers to place restrictions on the availability of the high-powered assault rifles, including the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle that was used in the Sandy Hook school shooting.
The AR-15 rifle has come under much scrutiny of late, as varieties of the rifle were also used in the Colorado movie theater shooting in July and in a New York shooting that claimed the lives of two first responders on the scene of a home fire.
The NRA has stated that the AR-15 is popular among hunters, target shooters and for home protection, but the gun can shoot 45 rounds per minute, and some magazines can hold up to 100 rounds, making it an intriguing option for those people who intend to use it for a more sinister purpose. It’s also not ideal for hunting or home protection, as hunters say the gun equates to “spray and pray” hunting and its large size makes it difficult to maneuver in the confined spaces of a home.
The city council is one of many groups, politicians, and cities seeking to place tighter laws on military-style weapons and their accessories. In addition to the stricter laws, the city also wants to implement a more vigorous application process that includes a more in-depth background check. The city also hopes to create a gun violence policy committee to examine the current gun laws and draft safety measures for legislation.
Minnesota has seen an increase in gun permit applications since the December 14 shooting as prospective gun owners hope to purchase a firearm before the new legislation goes into effect.
Minnesota Criminal Defense Attorney comments
It’s not surprising to see reactionary legislation in the wake of a tragedy of this nature. It’s easy political capital to try to crack down on high powered/automatic/large capacity weapons, but I don’t think that does anything to address the problem, which is that a certain number of people seem deadset on committing mass murder.
In countries that don’t tolerate guns as much as the US, people resort to bombs, poison gas, arson, etc. in order to achieve their objectives, so to me, reactionary gun legislation like this is an easy way to make people feel safer but does little, if anything, to get to the root of why these tragedies keep occurring. Not to mention the fact that if a person is intent on killing a bunch of people and committing suicide, it seems unlikely that such an individual would be concerned with acquiring a gun in a legal manner.
From what I understand, it’s still quite easy to get any weapon you want if you’re willing to go through the black market or shady channels like underground gun shows, so only relatively law-abiding people are likely to be dissuaded by this type of reactionary legislation.
Some of the public just want politicians to seem like they’re doing something to address the problem, so they can be deluded into thinking this will never happen again, until of course it does and we go through the same cycle all over again. I remember all the same hysteria in the aftermath of Columbine, and clearly none of those reactionary laws did anything to prevent the latest tragedy in Connecticut.
Related source: TwinCities.com
