A different way of defining what an assault weapon is

[JoeStuckInOH]

21. My definition (or post content) suggests banning nothing. It's just a definition.

There's nothing innately unconstitutional with categorizing a group of guns and giving them a name "Assault Weapon" regardless of how "over inclusive" some might find the definition. It's just an exercise in logistics and legal definition.

Nor did I advocate banning anything. I simply suggested that Assault Weapons be held under the purview of the NFA and the future transfer of such items be made in accordance with ATF/NFA regulations. No one is banning or confiscating ANYTHING. Assault weapons already owned can be grandfathered in with tax-exempt registrations, and they can continued being owned and used all the same. And if someone wants to sell an assault weapon then they can do so under the transfer procedure set forth by the ATF/NFA. It's a system already in place with well understood regulations in the gun community. And for sellers or purchasers of otherwise assault weapons that do not want to deal with added ATF/NFA regulations, they can have the rifles' magazines made integral to the existing firearm via an ATF approved method. This address samples already on the market without confiscation or costly reimbursement while giving the current owners of such weapons a choice of legally continuing possession as NFA Assault Rifle... or converting the weapon to a Non-Assault Rifle.

As far as development of new feeding methods, Necessity is the mother of all invention. If a new feeding device is truly needed, I'm sure one will be created eventually. And if it can be marketed at a low enough price with enough sold to the extent of creating a public safety issue needing addressed... Well then, as they say, necessity is the mother of invention. And I'm sure new legislation can be invented.