A terrible crime is committed so government officials want to Do Something^TM to prevent it from happening again. Never mind that prior restraint is supposedly illegal. Never mind that what they propose is illegal and a felony. They admit, in virtually the same breath they used to push their proposals, that their proposals won't work:

But after the news conference, state Sen. John Cullerton, a Chicago Democrat and longtime gun control advocate, acknowledged they would not have prevented the NIU shootings. Authorities have said the NIU gunman legally obtained the weapons he used.

If they know their proposal would not have prevented the crime then it's obvious their proposal is intended for the stated purpose. It's about something else. What is that something else? I can't say for certain. In fact it may be they don't even know. The question these bigots need to be asked, "Since you know this proposal won't prevent such crimes, what's the real reason you advocate more restrictions on firearms?"