longbough

I presume you are referring to the opposition "gun-folks" have to the "Assault Weapons" Ban.
I'm glad you mention this because there's a big misconception that should be adressed.

#1. Fully automatic (i.e. class 3 weapons) are already illegal for private citizens to purchase and own (with rare exceptions) throughout the US for many years. People assume events like the "Hollywood shootout" reflects the weakness of current legislation. This is false. Those automatic weapons cannot be purchased in your local gun-shop or gun-show. They were obtained illegally.
#2. The "Assault Weapons" Ban is NOT a ban on fully automatic "Assault Weapons." It only establishes the legal precident to ban firearms on the basis of cosmetic features alone.
"Gun-folks", like me, are baffled with the descriptions of "evil features" that "define" the "Assault Weapon."
Flash hiders -simply protect a shooter from being blinded by excessive muzzle blast. They are NOT made to conceal your position while shooting- that is a myth. It wouldn't be very effective anyway for that purpose.
Collapsable Stock - It is not used for facilitating concealment under a treanchcoat. It is for storage or for "de-bulking" paratroopers' loads. The basis for the "treanchcoat" myth is pure Hollywood. While criminals may have hidden long guns beneath long coats this has little to do with a collapsable stock.
For a heavy battle-rifle like the FN-FAL, a collapsable stock wouldn't help at all.
Pistol grip - pure cosmetic. It is not used to facilitate "one-handed" shooting of a rifle. If you wanted to convert any long gun to a "one-handed" weapon you can just cut off the stock and it can still be gripped. Crooks commonly do this for double barrelled shotguns which don't have pistol grips. Even so, a semi-auto rifle or shotgun is just too damned heavy to use one-handed anyway.
Bayonet lug - when was the last time you ever saw a crook who used a rifle with a bayonet?
I could go on but you get the point.

The very name "Assault Weapons" is a complete misnomer. Despite it's description in the media and by its supporters it has nothing to do with automatic weapons. Just look at the way it is written.

The "Assault Weapons" Ban only establishes a basis to justify the banning of guns on cosmetic grounds alone. When the ban comes under criticism by gun-owners we imagine this big group of sociopaths weilding automatic weapons.

The truth is that gun-owners, like myself, are fearful that the establishment of laws like this would gradually expand the definition of "Assault Weapons" over time to include almost every gun manufactured.

It's understandable to assume I am merely some "gun-nut' selling a euphemistic slant on an obvious issue. I implore you to research the facts (from neutral sources) behind the hyperbolic slogans hurled by BOTH sides of this issue before you draw your conclusions. The results may surprise you.

I live in Calfornia, too. Ironically, I've found that most "liberal" friends and relations have been quite closed-minded about this issue. Even after finding the facts for themselves and even acknowledging that their argument is founded on false claims - most of them refuse to change their stance on the issue. But in the end, they are forced to admit their position is a matter of emotion - not reason.