[stranger and pilgrim]

Actually, I suspect that the gun the shooter used had a “post-ban” configuration. In other words, it had its evil features (bayonet lug, collapsible stock and flash hider) removed. If so, it wasn’t really an “assault rifle” as defined by state law. Oh, and by the way, it would have been perfectly legal under the old U.S. assault weapons ban as well. This case proves what gun people have known all along. The AWB did nothing. All it did was affect some of the cosmetics of these firearms.

Let me say this again: Reinstate the federal assault weapons bill and the shooter’s gun would still be perfectly legal and NOT an “assault weapon” under the definition of the law.

[Hot Tabasco]

Actually, I suspect that the gun the shooter used had a “post-ban” configuration

Nope, just two semi-auto handguns....

[Charles Martel]

Let me say this again: Reinstate the federal assault weapons bill and the shooter’s gun would still be perfectly legal and NOT an “assault weapon” under the definition of the law.

They don't want to bring back the '94 Assault Weapons Ban. No, what they have in mind this time makes that look tame by comparison. Just as with the Health care Reform issue, they've had "think tanks" brewing this up for a decade now. And if passed, there will be no "sunset".