“There is, however, the concept of a de facto ban.”
I’m going to make one more comment, and then I’ll shut up. At the beginning of this year a friend of mine bought a MAC 10 .45 fully automatic firearm for $8,000. He went through the legal process (which he said was not as difficult as he thought it would be) and, about 7 months later, got his tax stamp and took possession of the firearm. If they are banned, de facto or otherwise, how is that possible?
Riddle me this, suthener:
If the Hughes Amendment (look it up) hadn’t banned the non-government possession of machine-guns manufactured after 1986, how much do you suppose that MAC-10 would cost?
Can you list for me all the mechanical, technical, engineering reasons why an M-16 with a 3 position selector switch costs at least an order of magnitude more than an AR-15 with a 2 position selector switch?
Your friend had to pay $8000 for a stamped piece of junk (personal opinion) that cost $50 to make. In a free market it would cost a few hundred dollars at most. If legislation results in something that should be inexpensive being priced out of reach of the vast majority of gun owners, that’s a de facto ban.
If legislation resulted in all telescopic sights costing $10,000 or more, would you be arguing that they haven’t been de facto banned just because 1 in 100 gun owners could still afford them?