In Friday's article, Burns wrote that during Loughner's sentencing, "I also questioned the social utility of high-capacity magazines like the one that fed his Glock. And I lamented the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban in 2004, which prohibited the manufacture and importation of certain particularly deadly guns, as well as magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

"The ban wasn't all that stringent – if you already owned a banned gun or high-capacity magazine you could keep it, and you could sell it to someone else – but at least it was something," Burns added. This time, he said, "Don't let people who already have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don't care whether it's called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it."

It's unusual for a sitting judge to make such high-profile comments about public policy, but Burns – who said he's a gun owner – wrote that there's "no reason civilians need to own assault weapons and high-capacity magazines." Regulating the number of rounds a gun can fire without reloading "might be able to take the `mass' out of `mass shooting,'" he said.

"It says something that half of the nation's deadliest shootings occurred after the ban expired, including the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn.," Burns wrote. "It also says something that it has not even been two years since Loughner's rampage, and already six mass shootings have been deadlier."