Show-Voting

Over at Hot Air, they missed the important part and only got to the second-most important part in the exit question. 

Exit question: Would a federal assault weapons ban even be constitutional in light of the recent SCOTUS decision in Gruen? AR-15s are very much “in common use,” a key factor in the Court’s reasoning, and nearly all of them are used for “lawful purposes.” (Much more so than handguns are.) So how could Congress lawfully ban them presuming they had the votes to do so?

Hall readers probably know that the Gruen standard is actually the Heller standard for keeping and bearing arms. The recent case merely reaffirmed that the 2nd Amendment protects weapons that are "in common use for lawful purposes." 

The Cicilline bill – which currently has 211 Democratic co-sponsors and no Republicans – would make it illegal for anyone to “import, sell, manufacture, or transfer” semi-automatic rifles that have certain “military features.” These features include a “detachable magazine” or “a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.” Semi-automatic pistols and shotguns with similar features would also be covered.

This standard includes all of the most popular rifles and pistols in the United States. The bill would ban the strong majority of firearms currently manufactured in America. This would include not only the AR-15, the most popular rifle in America, but all versions of (great-)granddaddy's Colt 1911, all Glocks, and generally all semi-automatic pistols for which a 'detachable magazine' is a standard feature. Only some shotguns would be affected, but for rifles and pistols it would be a massive manufacturing ban.

So yes, it's clearly unconstitutional according to the standard the SCOTUS has upheld since 2008; and yes, they don't have the votes for it anyway. 

The real question, though, is whether Americans would obey a law like this in the first place. A government that passes laws in defiance of American moral values will eventually destroy its own legitimacy in the eyes of the People -- the standard that the Declaration of Independence explains is the point at which a change of governments is a right, and even a duty.

I suppose it hardly matters if there's no chance the law might pass.