“Assault Weapons” are VERY expensive and ownership requires an expensive federal license and background check (for EACH weapon purchased).
I doubt anyone who actually owns a true “assault weapon” would turn it in to the government in exchange for the small amounts of cash which would be offered under this law.
Then there is the fact that since the mid-1930s, there have been VERY VERY few people have used “assault weapons” during the commission of violent crimes.
I’m sure you know this.
“Assault weapon” does not mean “assault rifle,” which fits your description.
It means a scary looking semi-auto firearm with magazine loading.
I do have a question for the many gun experts on this forum. Do the features they use to define “assault weapons,” such as detachable stocks or forward grips, really make such a weapon that much more effective at mass killing of people, as opposed to a weapon with the same mechanism and magazine in a more “civilian” look?
Is there some reason these cosmetic features actually make it all that much easier to kill people?