As I recall, when the Clinton's took office, new gun laws were enacted and the new law prohibited so-called assault rifles, big-clipped magazines, so-called cop-killer bullets, etc.
Not exactly. First it was not just Clinton though he was quite anti-gun and did many things, this legislation was passed by Congress. Don't let the hundreds of participants many of which are in office longer than a president can be off the hook because it is easier to blame the executive.
Second they didn't take place right when Clinton took office. Clinton was in office nearly two years before the AWB legislation. In fact Clinton was in office almost as long as Obama has been now before the legislation was passed.
Third "assault rifle" is a real term for a type of rifle, "assault weapon" is something entirely different, a legislative term that includes pistols, shotguns, things in the wrong caliber even if single shot (like in CA) and gets random additions when new ones are passed.
Some of the "renewals" in Congress almost considered them any semi-auto firearm ever used by any Federal LEO agency, or the military in the past or present, or any firearm based on such a design. All they would have had to do to ban anything is issue it to some officers. Then the ATF really would ban whatever they wanted.
"Assault Weapon" is an amorphous term, it mutates and changes to include more things over time, and really has no exact definition. That is one of the big tricks that works in favor of the antis, because people think they actually know the definition and consider whether they agree or not with that more limited definition they envision.
These laws expired during the Bush years; right?
Yes. But that was not the plan. The plan was to permanently renew the assault weapon ban when it expired. That could have happened, but the Republicans had control of Congress. They had both the House and the Senate, and while Bush was in office. Though I recall something about Bush being willing to sign it if the legislation reached his desk.
Most of the antis are Democrats, and while there is some strong anti Republicans, and some pro gun Democrats, big anti-gun legislation is typically the result of primarily Democrats.
Many of the Democrats were in favor of reinstating it, but lacking the votes they didn't want to be too vocal about such a hot topic issue and it sunset.
Had it sunset in in 2007 though instead of 2004 it would have been immediately renewed, quite likely permanently.
As it was though the years that had elapsed since the sunset and dramatic constituency pressure had shifted some of the fence sitting and "pro-gun" Democrats away from trying to pass a new one once they did regain Congress.
It may be easy to "renew" something already in place, even permanently, with minimal notice and fiasco, but is a lot harder to reinstate something after some years had elapsed and millions of Americans had come to change their minds and realize the doom and gloom was not reality.
The feds cannot constitutionally take anything without paying fair market price; it must be bought--per the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Perhaps, but perhaps not. Assets including homes, property, vehicles, and all manner of things are seized by government with no compensation whatsoever in the war on drugs.
In fact it is a primary motivator of Law Enforcement, known as asset forfeiture and is one of the largest sources of extra funds and cool toys for state and federal LEO.
They basically get to steal what people involved in drugs have.
At the state level California banned various Assault Weapons, and they became illegal. They briefly opened a registration that let some keep theirs if they went through the hoops and went into he state database of being in possession of such evil things (and police can see who has them when they look them up which can result in different treatment,) but only briefly, and those that didn't or missed that brief window could not legally own them.
There was no grandfathering per say, and those that did manage to register them and keep them can never sell or transfer them to another regular person in the state. They are essentially worthless in California, and cannot even be left to heirs in the state.
An additional important consideration.
Assuming there is both grandfathering, and that grandfathered items can then also be transferred to other people if there was any similar new legislation is a major assumption.
They could not be grandfathered, or they could have a mandatory buyback like Australia, or they could be grandfathered but illegal to ever transfer to another person like in California. Making their monetary value almost nothing.
I think your hunch will turn out to be wrong. I think we will see a few weeks of talking, filing the McCarthy stuff, the Blair Holt stuff, something from Lautenberg, all of which will die in committee and that will be that.
I do think legislation is unlikely, especially if the constituents make it clear they won't tolerate it, and the House is currently mainly Republicans, so the Senate and the President would have to work hard to make something without the support of the House.
However there is added concern because unlike some other tragedy, there is not that many people in Congress and so when a Congress member is murdered it is going to strike close to home. They will be keenly aware of the missing coworker. Even if she survives her mental state or a realization of her inability to perform her job the same or at all could also be keen reminders to coworkers, perhaps even stronger than had she died because they may go through that realization together.
