[RonF]

“there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.”

Given that the Supreme Court explicitly affirmed that people have a right to own guns for self-defense and not just for hunting, would this be an argument for getting this declared unconstitutional? At least by the present court?

[Quiller]

Given that the Supreme Court explicitly affirmed that people have a right to own guns for self-defense and not just for hunting, would this be an argument for getting this declared unconstitutional? At least by the present court?

This is not taking away the right, just regulating it, "for the public good."

You have freedom of speech, but not unlimited (libel, perjury, presenting a clear and present danger, incitement of an immediate unlawful act, et al.)

You can still own firearms, just not the really "bad" ones, or the ones that "look mean." < /sarc>

The list does seem to be aimed at cynically dividing 2nd Amendment supporters -- there are a lot of people who will look at the list and see their favorite (bolt rifles, pump or break shotguns, revolvers, Glock/polymetoos, 1911/clones, not on the list and think, "Well, it's just the militia types that are affected, I'm all right so it's okay with me."