Gun regulation inconsistencies and ambiguities are major impediments to sensible solutions. The current assault weapon definitions, for instance, are largely based on cosmetics and have little to do with what a real, selective-fire assault rifle is capable of-- and such weapons have been banned since the 1920s’. Large capacity magazines, banned during the Clinton era in 1994 and later allowed to expire during the G.W. Bush era in 2004, may or may not be worthwhile revisiting. A capable rifle or pistol owner can swap out a magazine in under a second, making a 20 round, 30 round, or more clips superfluous. I believe president Obama stated the challenge correctly when he said: “There is a big chunk of space between what the Second Amendment means and having no rules at all…”

Inconsistent rule across states, counties and municipalities have been and need to continue to be addressed. Purchasing a gun from an FFL gun store in Delaware by an NJ resident requires all the necessary forms and NJ restrictions do apply. Buying a gun privately? Different matter. Laws in effect are often ignored due to ignorance of them. Having clear, consistent procedures across state and municipal boundaries is a good starting place in initiating rational gun safety legislation.

If Mayor Short follows through on his intention to sign this letter, he should be commended.

What is banning high capacity rifles and ammunition magazines going to do?

First, there are so many in private collector, law abiding citizens hands do you expect them to just give them up? and if yes, will you give me the $50,000 or so to buy mine?

High capacity magazines are 30 rounds. Do you think that magazines with only 20 rounds have less chance of harming anyone?

If you are going to make laws, make laws that make sense. Please stop wasting my tax money on another impotent law.

I know - why don't they just pass a law making it illegal to kill people?

Why is this even a story? It should be titled "Mayor possibly plans to sign letter when he gets back from Aruba".

Wow, banning pot, heroin has worked so well, let's waste more money to fight something. Let's give everyone a false sense of security, because with an assault ban, the mentally ill will think twice about killing people. Now with only criminals and a black market selling them, I am sure they will be doing background checks.

Assault weapons have no place in our society. They should be banned.

Before the ban and after the ban, they were almost the same. Since the ban ended they have gone up, however, mental facilities across the nation have closed, the ACLU has passed laws making it harder to force help on adults and children for that matter, we have added more and more video games to shelves in stores, that were created to desensitize our military members and parents allow young children and teens to play them, more single family homes with both parents working.....do I like assault weapons, NO, do I own one, NO, do I see a reason to own one, not really, but will a ban work, doubtful, the problem is not guns. 99% of the population is not going to do this and if congress only passes gun laws, they have put a very poor band aid on a huge wound. We deserve more, but we have accepted mediocre politicians running this country on both sides of the aisle.

Before the ban in the 1980's and during the ban they were practically the same rate. Only since the ban has been lifted did they go up. So what changed? I think it's so much more than a ban.

If you are fine with a band aid and that's what the leaders will try to do, then once again you except mediocre from our gov't. How about it becomes so much more than banning something, that people will be able to build and make at home anyway or get in the black market?I guess I just expect more.

Preventing black market purchases or making things at home *is* very difficult, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can to limit the availability of these weapons that have no ligitimate purpose in civilian hands.

So, if/when the same ban is re-enacted. Now what? After everyone pats their backs and everyone feels good about the law in place, what are you going to do?

Let's say that I have 5 weapons that fit into this category along with multiple high capacity magazines for each. I have paperwork to show when purchased and that they were purchased 100% legally. Do you now feel safe and warm? Now, what if about half (just for argument sake) of the registered gun owners in our township have at least 1 of these weapons. How do you feel now? Still feel safe?

The ban will prevent new assault weapons to be sold if they fit into the specific description provided, yes. But there are still millions out there. What will stop some one from getting hold of one and doing harm? And what about those weapons that don't fit into the description. Same gun, you just can't mount a bayonet to it. Yea, that will stop someone.

With the unspeakable horror of the CT shooting, the shooter had hundreds of bullets on him. He had multiple magazines for the rifle he used. He clearly reloaded multiple times. Having 10 round magazines or 30 does not make any difference when someone wants to acomplish such a revolting act.

Let's get some facts out there:

1. Automatic weapons are illegal to purchase or own, in any state, unless you have a Class III license. I should know, because I was shooting an HK-MP5SD last week, visiting my Class III owning best friend in GA. Full auto, suppressed, beautiful, and that Class III license means the government has been so far up my friend's fourth point of contact, they should be married.
2. Assault weapons are already banned in many states, including New Jersey. Now, someone may have a close cousin, but technically with a pinned folding stock, removed bayonet-lug, and modified muzzle-break, it is no longer an assault weapon.
3. A responsible gun owner should maintain their weapons, ammunition, and for all non-acute home protection weapons - firing pins located in different areas of the house, if children are in the home. I could hand you my guns and ammo, and you'd still be incapable of firing them. If a gun is desired for home protection, then a biometric gun safe is the only way to go.
4. Charles Whitman killed 17 people and injured 32 with a bolt-action deer rifle. Savages will use any tool available.
5. The monster in CT did not use "legally purchased" firearms to conduct his massacre. He stole legally purchased firearms, thus was in the possession of stolen firearms.
6. More needs to be done about access to guns and those found in possession of illegal guns should be branded terrorists. Leave the legal owners alone.

Run a mental health check on people to filter out the mentally unstable. May help a little. If they can't find a black market...

How does the mayor (and the author of this article's headline) define "assault weapon"? A baseball bat can be readily used to commit an assault. So are baseball bats to be included in this ban?

Try starting with the weapons prohibited under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004. It did not include baseball bats, nor did it include vehicles used to drive across town and assault school employees.