Forget the idea of an assault weapon ban. UBCs are the way to go.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

First, any AWB is predicated on being able to define an assault weapon. The time and political capital expended in negotiating that definition is better spent elsewhere.

Second, any legislation named, containing the words or identified as equivalent to an AWB will be fought against long and hard by almost every Republican and almost every pro-gun lobbying organization.

Third, which I consider most important, attempts at an AWB will perpetuate the idea that such a thing as an "assault weapon" actually exists. This will also convince those against such a ban to focus, in contributions, efforts and media, on the defeat of those Democrats most vulnerable who are in favor of it. This would also rally any friendly anti-gun folks and give them hope that a federal AWB was possible.

Just a reminder of the 1994 efforts:

Those in favor of the measure were able to secure the votes they needed by letting the people who already owned these weapons keep them. There was also the "sunset provision" that was accepted by sponsors of the bill. Even with these provisions, the bill was passed in the Senate with a slim majority of 52 votes before being signed by President Bill Clinton.

After the ban was put in place, there was a large increase in the prison population, which disproportionately affected African Americans. This fact, along with some higher taxes, a House banking scandal, and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), were some problems that the Democrats were facing. In the elections which followed, the Republicans gained control of the Senate and the House. Republicans had not had control of the House in 40 years.

There is now a bipartisan precedent for cooperation on meaningful legislation. H.R.7910 - "Protecting Our Kids Act" made a difference. A further accomplishment that would also make a difference would be to enable Universal Background Checks (UBCs).