You jest, but if the Court decides the way the DoJ wants, or worse the way the Democrat former DoJ officials, including Jackboot Janet, indicate in their amicus brief, you can expect the currently languishing in committee "new and improved" AWB ban to magically make it to a couple of those Oh Dark Thirty, "unanamous consent"/"without object" sesssions and appear on his desk. (Hows that for a long sentence? ) Where he will sign it. The bill writers have learned from their previous attempts, this one would ban more guns, and would be more difficult to "get around" while still maintainig the more important features. It's at least as bad as the California law, which has produced some really "interesting" AR derivitives. (Fixed magazine that you have to break the gun open to load as one example. Pump action ARs as another)
“(Fixed magazine that you have to break the gun open to load as one example. Pump action ARs as another)”
BAAARRRFFF! A pump action AR? Never. I need to get the gun soon and stock up on ammo. I’ll get 80,000 rounds, oh wait, that’ll get me in trouble too.
http://www.topix.com/city/south-bend-in/2007/08/armageddon-ready-80-000-bullets-in-house
***It’s at least as bad as the California law, which has produced some really “interesting” AR derivitives. (Fixed magazine that you have to break the gun open to load as one example. Pump action ARs as another)***
Was it the Enfield where you put the rounds in through a clip, into a fixed magazine?