I gave this some thought. Its usually pretty damn hard to get rid of a law or fail to renew an existing law with a sunset clause. Even many of us considered the issue largely in doubt until Monday. Why did this happen? The emotions and advertisement and polls on the issue suggest that there was widespread support for renewel. Congress however failed to act. I think I know why and it is really simple. No one other than a few die hard supporters and opposers understood the law. Most people thought it banned machineguns, but it didn't. Most people knew really little about it except that one group thought it was a good idea and another thought it was a really shitty idea. Most people really just didn't care too much at all about it. Now here is why the next ban will work and what the antis missed the first time around.

The law had only one substantive clause. That was the one that limited mag capacity. If they had passed a law that said we are gonna limit all magazines for private sale in the US to 20 rounds, the law would have been bulletproof. Not even the CMP shooters would complain much. If that was all the law did then they would have had their perma ban, no hoopla, no lamentation and the only people moaning would have been the class three guys with bullet hoses. Their problem was they went too large, tried to use too many convoluted definitions and played too fast and loose with the truth. Had they just gone simple, they would have won the day.

Quoted: I disagree. Nobody should have the right to pass laws that limit any part of the constitution. Especially, the "Bill of Rights".

Its not about the constitution, its about why their idea didn't fly.  There was no successful Constitutional challenge.  This thing was decided on a practical as opposed to theoretical basis.

I understand mac but you are back to the theoretical and not the practical.  It comes down to what will fly lowest without tripping the radar.  Had they just gone mag capacity, not even most here would have bitched all that much, and they would have accomplished their only substantive goal.  I believe that Feinstein is not stupid.  She will lay low for a year or three, and hit it again from that angle alone, and she will likely succeed.

Quoted: I believe that Feinstein is not stupid. She will lay low for a year or three, and hit it again from that angle alone, and she will likely succeed. Recall that over the summer she tried to keep the ban on features in place in exchange for a sunset solely on the magazine limitation. I don't think she's stupid, but there's definitely something funny going on upstairs with that woman.

I must have missed that one.  If this is so, then it totally defies logic as the capacity limit was really the only substance this pig of a law had in it.

Probably so Pooby.  That is the problem, from their perspective.  Their lies go too complicated.  We won because truth was on our side at this outing.  That, and the fact that those on the other side were not likely to vote for the President regardless.  My thoughts here were about what to watch for in the future then if things look like they are gonna go bad in a big way, try to shift the focus to something we could live with.  The key to winning any debate is knowing what the other side is likely to do, then be ready to surprise them.  I know it runs counter to most thinking, but I tend to use my 30s only for plate shoots or duty.  My regular shooting I use only 20s.  In short, you hit them with the deal they would look foolish refusing.