The assault weapons controversy
At issue is a Maryland ban passed in 2013. In 2014 a US district judge upheld the ban saying:
...
To explain this, she noted the Supreme Court indicated in Heller that military grade M-16 rifles could be banned as dangerous and unusual, then went on to write "Given that assault rifles like the AR-15 are essentially the functional equivalent of M-16s — and arguably more effective — the same reasoning would seem to apply here."
Blake also found in her ruling that rounds fired from assault weapons have enhanced penetrating capabilities and therefore pose a higher risk to both law enforcement than the bullets fired from other types of firearms. Nevertheless, when plaintiffs questioned the practice under the ban of allowing retired law enforcement officers to receive and keep assault weapons and large capacity magazines, she dismissed the objection saying, "they are better equipped than the general public to handle and store firearms safely."
I personally believe that states have certain sovereign powers that do and should allow the regulation of guns within the limits of US SC precedence. The question at issue here for me is that IMHO facts accepted by the court in the original case before Judge Blake were limited and inaccurate.
My issue with any AWB is that a law regulating firearms:
>> Must, without reliance on a brand, model or manufacturer, functionally identify the target weapon.
>> Must not contain language such as "similar to". A weapon meets the criteria or not.
>> Must not contain simply appearance based non-functional criteria.
In your opinion, is there a case where ban on a type of firearm could/should be acceptable?
Please explain your criteria if you answer yes.
If you believe no classes or types of weapons should be more tightly regulated, please explain your reason(s).
Thanks
Have a great day.
= new reply since forum marked as read
that seems fair 
But hopefully it wouldn't be limited to a particular brand....wouldn't want my CZ's banned from import. 
Because as any real Democrat knows, "assault weapons" can't possibly be used for defense.
I just hate that term.
There is no such thing, in my opinion, and even the phrase is a bad one.
If you let the other side control language, you lose.
I think the nomenclature important because I have zero intent of assaulting anyone. If I need to use a firearm to defend my home or life that is not assault, nor is it same if I go plinking or target shooting.
I find it pretty useful to try to get anyone preaching 'gun control' to define what it is they want to ban or abolish. Now, I'm the kind of guy who writes with a fountain pen; strictly wheelguns and bolt action or pump, nothing with technology newer than about 125 years old, but even if they want to rant, whine and wail about a ar15 they are still basically talking about a hunting rifle, albeit one updated in an ergonomic manner (since I don't need to traipse through muck and mire I don't really care about the weight as all I have to do is from the car to the bench at the range)
and shoot innocent civilians on their own?
...what I mean is that you can make all the laws you want, a law won't make everyone do only good things.
If laws stopped crime, that is what "control" implies, then we wouldn't have murders or armed robberies. They are against the law.
I read stories about one heinous crime or another and when some knife wielding serial rapist claims a sixth victim, I don't hear anyone suggest that a new law would be the answer. Now if I read about some useless scum shooting 6 people, it wouldn't be hard to find someone demanding a new law that would surely solve the problem.
........for the entryway of the pad. That'll keep me safe.
Those are some very large holes. I was speaking tongue-in-cheek -- would prefer not to advertise the presence of guns in the pad.
Like your graphic nevertheless.
It's one thing not to advertise the presence. It's another to advertise absence. 