Dems introduce bill banning assault weapons
Source: MSN/The Hill
Reps. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) and Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) formally introduced a bill on Monday to ban assault weapons.
The legislation, called the "Assault Weapons Ban of 2018," was introduced less than two weeks after the mass shooting at a Parkland, Fla., high school that left 17 people dead. The gunman used an AR-15 assault rifle during the shooting, one of the many firearms that would be banned under the bill.
The legislation would make it "unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon."
Deutch had promised to introduce such a ban during a CNN town hall event last week.
Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/dems-introduce-bill-banning-assault-weapons/ar-BBJD8DK?li=BBnb7Kz
Right on. It is about time some folks have the guts to take on the gun industry. While they are at it, please repeal the federal bill immunizing gun makers from lawsuits. Democrats need to show that they are not afraid of gun makers.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Maven
(10,533 posts)Introduce it again and again and again, like they did the ACA.
MosheFeingold
(3,051 posts)Incrementalism is not working.
SummerSnow
(12,608 posts)
olegramps
(8,200 posts)The ballot box is our last and only hope. I can only hope that we can wake up the youth to get out and vote or their future is in the shit house of history. My time is over and I have to admit that I was most fortunate to have lived through the best times of our nation's history. I was born during the depression in a migrant labor camp after my parents lost their livelihood. Many kids didn't even have a birth certificate until after their citizenship, and birth were found in the federal census or had been recorded in the family bible which was taken as proof. Thank God for FDR or we would still be there. I was able to get an education, rather than being forced into employment while still a child, worked my way through college during a time when that was possible, gladly serviced in the armed forces, married and thrived in the Fair Deal and New Deal economies that saw the working class get a fair shake. The Republicans and their nincompoop useful idiots are determined to turn back the clock to the days of working class destitution it will be another day older and deeper in debt to the country store. The oligarchs are coming for you and they are intent on enslaving you in a hopeless futile life or misery. Its your choice.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)
samir.g
(836 posts)This is great 
Hermit-The-Prog
(36,631 posts)My rights! They're taking away my ability to defend myself from the mindless hordes of Rethuglicans!
Dems got tighter language than I posted on here; I never thought of the "import" or "in or affecting" parts. Guess that's why the pros get the big bucks.
Hope this gets lots of public attention and Ryan has hissy fits.
47of74
(18,470 posts)
napi21
(45,806 posts)MSNBC, there was vote in the Florida legislature and they voted the bill down. There was a lot of booing from spectators, but Pub chair kept banging the gavel and calling for the next bill. That's what I expect from the federal legislators too. I actually HOPE they do vote it down because it will give truth to the Dems while they are campaigning .
The Mouth
(3,406 posts)"shame" a Republican?
Doing so requires a conscience, doesn't it? I'd have better luck trying to shame my cat about licking his balls.
Money and votes is *ALL* they understand.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)It's very big with many. Most Repub officeholders are not leaders but followers.
Not all get anxious without instructions on which ball to wash first. But almost all are naturally inclined to appreciate and obey the top-down authoritarian leadership structure that makes the Republican caucuses so extremely different from our liberal ones.
(That unified obedience to authority, which results in support for whatever their leadership tells them to support and disregard for any principles their leaders don't endorse, are their strengths, btw, for anyone inclined to wonder "what's wrong with us"?
This era's Repub congress is unusual in that they currently have two strongly cohesive, warring authoritarian factions, the smaller socio-religiously ultraconservative "Freedom caucus" and the almost-as-ultraconservative establishment business-serving group.)
The Mouth
(3,406 posts)I recall the saying from decades back:" Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line"
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 27, 2018, 02:26 AM - Edit history (1)
I oppose AWB's on grounds of individual liberty, and that they will not in fact reduce murders.
I can't imagine compliance with such a ridiculous law being particularly high even if a fair price was paid for each weapon turned-in, and the link makes no mention of how more than a hundred million firearms would be paid for.
But the details of my opposition aside, the mob mentality that has gripped many Democrats is truly chilling. There is a mad rush to delete one of the ten fundamental freedoms written into our founding national document. Like the rush to Deny Al Franken due process in the zeal for "Me too," this AWB madness will hurt many actual, progressive Democrats across the USA. I predict that Democrats will suffer at the polls once the media moves on to the next big story.
Meanwhile, I will continue to speak against this ill-advised policy proposal.
-app
TomCADem
(17,834 posts)We don’t even need to go to Fox News to get right wing no regulation talking points. There really is no reason why people should military weaponry that has been used in some of the deadliest mass shootings in our recent history. Not only is there not a ban, but gun makers have federal immunity against law suits.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)If you can find one substantial and credible definition of "neoloiberalism" that includes an individual right to keep and bear arms as a central tenet, I will send $20 to the charity of your choice.
-app
TomCADem
(17,834 posts)...is a pretty standard right-wing, neoliberal trope.
cvoogt
(949 posts)Sorry, screw individual liberties when it comes to weapons of war. No one should have those.
It is an amendment, and as such could be amended or repealed if enough people agree. I don't see a mad rush; I see some level of sanity prevailing in the gun debate perhaps for the first time in a long time.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)cvoogt
(949 posts)/nt
liberalmuse
(18,881 posts)The Republicans can try and work with the Democrats to hone this into the start of common sense gun legislation. I suspect the Republicans don’t even want that, so they’ll make sure it never hits the floor.
To be honest, I’m beyond sick of people thinking their “individual liberty”, which consists of owning guns that can inflict mass death and injury in seconds, trumps the collective basic rights of human beings to live, learn, work, pray and play without getting shot to shit. We have to draw the line when individual liberty infringes on the rights we all share. I absolutely commend the humanity of those longtime gun enthusiasts who are destroying their AR 15’s after this latest mass shooting.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)speech you can also be sued, but that's another matter.
Broadcast networks cannot say "Trump and the NRA are a bunch of butt-licking, douche bagger ball sucking fuck-ups who'd screw their own daughters and sons just as soon as beating up their immigrant-prostitute wives." - You can't say that on broadcast tv. We have every right, at our choosing, to ban the public from owning unnecessary military grade killing machines.
Get it now?
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)No more and no less than you are hostile to nuance, and letting people speak for themselves.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other... and each as petulant, irrelevant and peevish as the other. 
I quite certain however, you'll rationalize otherwise.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)
harun
(11,380 posts)appal_jack
(3,813 posts)
sl8
(16,973 posts)‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession, sale, or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018.
...
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)The details of this language could make the "hoarders" who have "stockpiled" several eeeeevil black "assault weapons" quite wealthy, as the language you pointed out also appears to allow the sale of such "grandfathered" "assault weapons."
Despite any monetary advantage I might or might not be able to derive from such legislation, I still oppose it on principle.
Nonetheless, you are correct here, and I thank you for pointing out the details I initially missed.
-app
sl8
(16,973 posts)I wasn't sure (still not 100%).
It's a lot to digest. It helps to be able to kick it back and forth with others.
steve2470
(37,481 posts)OK then, toodles Mr. NRA
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Who is this Mr. NRA who believes that individual liberty includes the right to wantonly murder children?
I know of no such man.
-app
Dave Starsky
(5,914 posts)They have made no effort whatsoever to ensure that the weapons they lust over won't be used for that purpose.
At the same time, they act as a lobbying organization for the gun manufacturers and sellers.
They invoke the 2nd Amendment to protect their primary purpose, to make money off the sale of guns.
I will believe that the NRA gives a shit about the killing of children when they actually do something about it.
Cold War Spook
(1,279 posts)The Republicans have been in power for a year and they have still not sent me my Letter of Marque which is also in the Constitution. I am sure I can get backing when I tell the Republicans that since we are at war with Syria, with the right armed ship, I can confiscate a major part of Syrian shipments of oil. Also why can't I have a "dirty" bomb? Isn't that my 2nd Amendment right?
So what are you doing on DU?
lunasun
(21,646 posts)Wiki
Between May 2003 and June 2008, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, and Representatives Michael Castle, R-DE, Alcee Hastings, D-FL, and Mark Kirk, R-IL, introduced bills to reauthorize the ban.
During the same time, Senator Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ, and Representative Carolyn McCarthy, D-NY, introduced similar bills to create a new ban with a revised definition for assault weapons. None of the bills left committee
After the November 2008 election, the website of President-elect Barack Obama listed a detailed agenda for the forthcoming administration. The stated positions included "making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent." Three months later, newly sworn-in Attorney General Eric Holder reiterated the Obama administration's desire to reinstate the ban. The mention came in response to a question during a joint press conference with DEA Acting Administrator Michele Leonhart, discussing efforts to crack down on Mexican drug cartels. Attorney General Holder said: "... there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons."
Efforts to pass a new federal assault weapons ban were made in December 2012 after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.[44][45][46] On January 24, 2013, Senator Feinstein introduced S. 150, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (AWB 2013).[47] The bill was similar to the 1994 ban, but differed in that it would not expire after 10 years,[46] and it used a one-feature test for a firearm to qualify as an assault weapon rather than the two-feature test of the defunct ban.[48] The GOP Congressional delegation from Texas, and the NRA, condemned Feinstein's bill.[49] On March 14, 2013, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a version of the bill along party lines.[50] On April 17, 2013, AWB 2013 failed on a Senate vote of 40 to 60.
oasis
(53,325 posts)for stragglers.
BigmanPigman
(54,539 posts)during the midterms to fall back on.
Calista241
(5,633 posts)So, virtually 90%+ of all firearms sold today.
I can’t begin to tell you how devestating this would be for us in the 2018 Senate races. Donnelly, Heitkamp, Tester, Brown and Smith would for sure lose. And maybe Manchin, Kaine, Nelson and Casey lose also.
It’s fine if you want to lay down on this altar, but realize that Trump will have 2 more years of even easier approval of crazy judicial and cabinet appointments.
The Mouth
(3,406 posts)But if the party is *EVER* going to try something like this, the time is now.
My guess is that it will do much more harm than good as far as electing Democrats and do little to prevent future shootings (although, of course, it is really hard to prove one way or the other without a lot of time and data)... But the timing and impetus is never going to be more with those who favor such things, so 'throw high the dice' as Caesar actually said (not 'the die is cast').....
FWIW, I don't care for AR type guns anyway, although I like target shooting with a bolt action target rifle and have some black powder stuff... not buying anything my dog could chew up nor do I think I'm going to stave off tyranny or waste hordes of bad guys with my 19th century tech...
WRT rifles, it bans those that take detachable mags and have 1 of 6 "evil" features. It also bans semi-auto rifles with a fixed magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds, excepting .22 rimires. That's far from all semi-auto rifles.
WRT to pistols, it bans those that take detachable magazines and have a feature like a threaded barrel, barrel, shroud, second pistol grip, etc. Very far from all semi auto-pistols.
Obviously, that's a gross simplification. It also bans, and exempts, a number of firearms by name, among other things, but I can't see how it can be fairly characterized as banning all semi-autos.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)I cannot, but make no claims to an exhaustive knowledge here.
While semi-auto rifles use a variety of feeding systems such as stripper clips (e.g.- the SKS), en-bloc clips (e.g.- the M1 Garand), and attached magazines (civilian BAR, etc.), for handguns (outside of revolvers), detachable magazines are all I can picture.
-app
sl8
(16,973 posts)Same with semi-auto handguns, but with a different list of "evil" features.
‘‘(36) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:
‘‘(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:
‘‘(i) A pistol grip.
‘‘(ii) A forward grip.
‘(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
‘‘(iv) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.
‘‘(v) A barrel shroud.
‘‘(vi) A threaded barrel.
‘‘((B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with.22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
...
‘‘(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:
‘‘(i) A threaded barrel.
‘‘(ii) A second pistol grip.
‘‘(iii) A barrel shroud.
‘‘(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
...
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)I think that the details are ludicrous, as none of these features measurably increase lethality, but here we are.
-app
dingosatemyusername
(103 posts)It just bans certain stocks and accessories. You will still be able to buy them with sport stocks.
What is really needed is a straight up ban on semi-automatics (both long gun and pistol)
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)Assault rifles are classified as machine guns for civilian purposes and have been heavily regulated since 1934, more than 10 years before assault rifles were invented.
None of the artificial definitions of "assault weapon" have ever included assault rifles or other machine guns.
This legislation contains all the flaws that the 1994 federal law contained and would be just as ineffective as the old fed law.
DetroitLegalBeagle
(2,453 posts)A lot of gun owners are single issue voters and nothing motivates them like the words "gun ban". Its also far easier to motivate voters to come out against something then for something. The NRA's power isn't just the money it lobbys with, its the voters it can turn out.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/19/why-the-nra-always-wins-217028]
sl8
(16,973 posts)I only meant to question the part about "bans all semi automatic pistols and rifles". I should have been more clear.
Thanks for the link.
Weed Man
(304 posts)gets a pass from me to be a candidate.
Otherwise,the moron with the A rating from the NRA needs to be buried in a pile of fertilizer, with fuel oil covered and a lit match nearby.
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)'Ban' is NOT a clear term. Yet I see this in headlines ALL THE GD TIME.
When something is BANNED, many (granted, stupid) people will read that word and assume it means 'if you already own it, you must immediately turn it in to the nearest Big Gubmint Melt-Down-Recycling-Station for 0 recompense or face multiple years in jail when the Black Helicopter Unisex People in their Blue Helmets descend on your neighborhood and kick down your door ... unless you abort your babies and go gay'.
BAN means BAN ON THE SALE OF, not 'go and take them away from everyone'.
I feel like media purposefully and regularly ignores this IMPORTANT stipulation of the concept of 'banning'.
Am I alone?
EX500rider
(12,134 posts)....in price on the 2nd hand market.
samir.g
(836 posts)There will be much weeping among the goobers who put their retirement money into murder machines.
EX500rider
(12,134 posts)If the govt outlaws them they will have to buy them all back at market price.
Weed Man
(304 posts)at 125% of retail. Money paid by the Department of Defense on a $5 billion budget just for that.
EX500rider
(12,134 posts)Weed Man
(304 posts)Yep, $5 billion is more than enough to buy back all the guns at 125% of value.
They should take the offer while it's hot and fresh, if it existed.
EX500rider
(12,134 posts)$5 billion at a avg price of $800 only buys you back a little over 6 million guns in a country with over 300 million guns.
SunSeeker
(57,467 posts)We're noting going to buy back shotguns and revolvers, so why include them?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon."
Transfer means I can't even give mine to my kid.
Possess means 'turn it in', destroy it, etc.
After Gonzales v. Raich you can be sure that anything in your gun safe can be classified to 'affect interstate commerce'.
This bill is a total shit-show.
I'll need to re-read the whole bill in detail, but it'll ban about 25% of the contents of my gun safe.
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)Yeah, they really better not cross that line esp. if not willing to reimburse purchase price or it'll just piss way too many people off. Not a good idea. However, you can make it easy for them to simply be confiscated due to bad behavior by an owner.
Weed Man
(304 posts)So the Americans can feel better about themselves and have an extra money in their pockets for turning their guns in.
The DoD, who is responsible of maintaining the rules of 2A, needs to fork up the money at a tune of at least $5 billion to 10 billion to buy the guns back, then properly disable the guns, and MELT IT DOWN.
Make art out of it, I don't care. Just keep the guns away from Americans who doesn't need or deserve it.
DetroitLegalBeagle
(2,453 posts)And since when is DoD responsible?
sl8
(16,973 posts)I haven't read the whole thing yet, either, but see paragraph 2 here:
‘‘(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.
‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession, sale, or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018.
...
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)However, I have no way to establish that for a very large number of my firearms...
JustABozoOnThisBus
(24,576 posts)Does this bill only affect interstate or foreign sales?
It almost looks like you can give one of these guns to your kid, but the gun can never be taken or shipped to another state.
But, I'm not a lawyer.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)weapons, so most of my concern is moot.
However, interstate commerce (Gonzales vs. Raich) has been held to apply to a single pot plant grown in a single home for the use of the owner of the plant, no secondary party, let alone state lines were involved.
Because pot is consumed country-wide, that single plant was held to be a part of interstate commerce, even in the sense that the fact that she owned it, reduced her demand on interstate drug trade. (Despite interstate drug trade for weed being illegal at the time.)
Crazy ass world we live in.
Weed Man
(304 posts)People like you needs to have their brains examined for owning murder weapons.
I suggest you sell the contents of your gun safe and the safe to go with it.
Don't like it? Tough. We need a reasonably gun-free country. I'm all about strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I interpret it clearly as the regulated militia is the standing military (Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, US Marines, to name a few)- but not to the LEO's. THey will be issued a TASER or less lethal weapons.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Since you asked so politely, and didn't cast any kind of shade over it, I'll explain.
About 1/3 of the firearms in my safe are inherited after my father died. Each of those has some sort of family/sentimental value. I would not destroy or sell them for any reason, and if I chose to dispose of them, it would be to give them to my brother. of the rest, about 1/8th are guns people have given to me because, for whatever reason, they did not want them anymore. One guy had a kid, and his wife didn't want it in the house, safe or no safe. Fine. I gave it a good home.
That leaves the rest. Some are 'mine', some are my wife's. As a legal entity we both own all of them, but i'm making a distinction here, because I do not use her shotgun. It is configured for her, ergonomically. To safely use a firearm, it should fit you, fit your hands, fit your arm length. So we have some 'his' and 'hers' delineation which leads to duplication in a particular caliber and feature set.
Then there's purpose. You can't really use a .30 caliber against small game. Too destructive. You can't use an AR against a deer, it's not destructive enough to put the animal down clean, so it's illegal for that purpose in this state. So we have a variety of rifles in semi-auto, bolt action, and lever action of various calibers.
I have a couple rifles with pure historical value, like the US M1917. It's a bolt action, used in WWI and II by the Allies. You can track where it went by the armorers marks stamped on it. To me, it's a very different experience to see a rifle in a museum, versus firing it. If you want people who look at history to be in awe of the destructive potential of war, to see, touch, and smell that destructive power can be a powerful caution AGAINST nationalism or arrogance. I also have a Savage .303 model 1889. The model is the year it was produced. They stopped making the ammunition for it in the 1920's. I have to hand-make rounds for it. Or I can buy them, at about 20$ a shot. Sometimes more. Even the empty brass is very expensive.
So, variety of guns, because they all perform different duties, for different users. If there was a single firearm that could do it all, that would be cool, but none exist.
I agree that gun safety is critical. I agree that some regulation is needed. But know this. Of all the firearms in my safe, the only ones that have ever taken human life, or been in a position to take human life, were used by the allies, on the Germans in WWII. Not a regrettable history for those rifles.
harun
(11,380 posts)SoCalMusicLover
(3,194 posts)Unfortunately the Democrats have ZERO say in what gets brought to the floor of the House. I guess it's nice that the Democrats are at least working, even though their ability to do much is extremely limited.
Bengus81
(9,773 posts)Let's give them a break and our support for doing so even if not in the majority in the House and Senate.
BumRushDaShow
(165,334 posts)It includes about 10 pages of the types/models of weapons to be banned but also includes a 96-page list of weapons, including, semi-automatics, that are exempted.
JustABozoOnThisBus
(24,576 posts)Considering it's got a snowball's chance in hell, it seems somewhat pointless and wasteful. I'm sure the 90 pages of exempted guns was a freebie, happily submitted by gun manufacturers' lobbyists, but the rest is some fine lawyerly (expensive) jargon.
BumRushDaShow
(165,334 posts)But yes, they do write the laws with lawyers in mind, otherwise the language would open huge loopholes that the courts would attempt to define based on what they think is the "best argument", forcing Congress to then go back and amend the thing to add the legalese. 
JustABozoOnThisBus
(24,576 posts)... previous versions of the bill, possibly going back to the (1994?) assault weapons ban.
noneof_theabove
(410 posts)from wikipedia:
"The National Firearms Act (NFA), 73rd Congress, Sess. 2, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236, enacted on June 26, 1934, currently codified as amended as I.R.C. ch. 53, is an Act of Congress in the United States that, in general, imposes a statutory excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms and mandates the registration of those firearms. The Act was passed shortly after the repeal of Prohibition."
Why?
Well the mobsters, Machine Gun Kelly, Al Capone, et.al., due to the "war on alcohol" were shooting up the town.
Dig up the pictures of the St. Valentine's Day Massacre.
Today?
The "war on drugs" has bought in nefarious actors with "weapons of war".
Control drugs like alcohol and lots of this problem will tone down.
Tomorrow?
Ban "military types of guns and ammunition".
It is not just the AR-15 or AK-47 and other guns [yes, there are varmint guns with the same ammunition].
The .223 ammunition, amount of explosive in the case and projectile specification, are really more of a problem.
Just read with the emergency room doctors have said after all the mass shootings with this ammunition.
It was designed for maximum destructive and killing power.
In reality of war you never kill, the don't require much support, but, wound them and it takes 5 to 8 people to deal with them.
Limit [with severe penalties] the amount of ammunition in a gun and the amount in possession.
6 shells, including in the chamber, are enough to neutralize your opponent [say home invasion].
Do you need 18 rifles and 200 bullets [or combination there of] to do deer hunting? NO!
Lack of "Common Sense " is a major health problem in ALL CongressCritters.
Response to noneof_theabove (Reply #15)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Bengus81
(9,773 posts)mcar
(45,604 posts)Well done!
Maxheader
(4,415 posts)continue to prove they put peoples lives in front of the 2nd amendment. We must all
be ready to die to safeguard this.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)This that your life may be endangered?
cilla4progress
(26,487 posts)you think you can end up with, in proposing legslation? You negotiate to a central position or compromise.
True Blue American
(18,579 posts)To lay his political future on the line. Said so.
Where is the gumption of Democrats?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-gop-congressman-says-he-would-support-assault-weapons-ban/
If all they care about is their political future what good are they? We elect them to protect us.
shenmue
(38,576 posts)
Weed Man
(304 posts)After every Republican hands their resignations to Trump today.
Response to TomCADem (Original post)
James48 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Most people can't even tell you what the 1994-2004 AWB actually did. They don't understand that these rifles and magazines were still readily available and legal to be sold. It's a lot of political capital for something that will have little to no impact.