A Few Thoughts On The Bill
1. The introduction is interesting. A bill "to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited..." First, I cannot recall the last time the NRA or anybody on this site suggested that "the people" have a right to keep and bear howitzers, mortars, grenades, LAWS, RPGs, tanks, Apaches, nukes, etc etc. Second, I cannot remember any bill introduced as "ensuring that the right to free speech is not unlimited," ditto the right to due process, peaceable assembly, etc etc.
2. Semi-auto handguns having the "capacity" to accept a threaded barrel are illegal if not grandfathered. So far as I know, as a practical matter every semi-auto handgun made in the past century has the capability of accepting a different barrel than the one it shipped with. Note, though, that the list of approved weapons includes no semi-auto pistols that would exempt any from the operation of the rule.
3. Any semi-automatic rifle having the "capacity" to accommodate a folding or telescoping stock is illegal. In other words, since probably all rifles have the "capacity" of being fitted with an aftermarket stock, the gun is illegal unless it is grandfathered or on the specifically "approved" list of firearms in the "approved" stock configuration.
4. The commerce clause is of course the basis for the federal legislation. I have not seen a federal act yet that "ensures" that federal power under the commerce clause is not unlimited, only that fundamental civil rights not be unlimited.
5. Why are "approved" bolt and slide rifles and shotguns specifically enumerated since they are exempt from the bill anyhow? Cabela's 1874 Sharps, too? Please. Is the bill looking to future amendments that will outlaw any new model of rifle or shotgun, or at least amendments requiring manufacturers to apply to be on the approved list of non-assault weapons?
6. I thought the bill would be more extreme than it is. But, if it is upheld, then there will be little chance of putting the brakes on to more and more restrictive legislation.