are terms that are more solid in courts, in my view.

from using semi-automatic weapons. May as well require them to destroy all those weapons. He could do that tomorrow.

When the public sees that federal agents have no use for semi-automatics, that may dampen public demand.

... the FBI is going to go back to six-shot Smith & Wesson revolvers? And bolt-action rifles? And pump shotguns? Completely ceding weapons superiority to their adversaries, the Bad Guys? Expect the number of agents killed in action to skyrocket. Then see what effect that has on public demand.

How about the military? Should they give up their semi-automatic weapons too? And of course their full-auto weapons. Could they at least have Gatling guns?

I was thinking about the thousands of armed postal criminal investigators, IRS criminal investigators, etc, etc. Armed agencies that rarely use their weapons in the course of duty. Yes, they could get by with revolvers, bolt-action rifles and shotguns since they're basically for show, AND they can always request local law enforcement backup for the few times they actually deal with violent criminals.

When USPS and IRS agents carry modern duty pistols with 17+ round capacity, it's a losing argument that non-government employees shouldn't be allowed the same.

Honestly, no one gives a crap about what postal inspectors carry. I doubt most people even know. But when you say "armed agencies that rarely use their weapons," you're basically undercutting your whole premise. "It's a perfectly sufficient weapon as long as you don't plan to use it" isn't exactly a hot selling point.

I should have said full-auto weapons.

Thanks for posting about this.

There is no chance of anyone proposing a bill that bans all semi-auto weapons.

Thanks.