A word on the ending of the law that "prohibits, by name, the sale of 19 kinds of semiautomatic weapons that have the features of guns used by the military, and also outlaws magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition." Talk Left, Matt Yglesias, and some other liberal libertarian sorts (and the usual suspects) aside, this is a law popular with the public and many in the crime fighting community (Batman's opinion is unknown). Kerry, his hunting photo-ops aside, supports it. A taste of the pro side can be seen here.
I'm somewhat dubious. Yglesias makes a good case that the idea that it's a useful "anti-terrorism" measure is somewhat hard to believe. Others (again, not just kneejerk NRA sorts) point out that the ban is largely symbolic, since many similar weapons are not banned. This has real equal protection problems, especially for someone with a healthy belief in the right to bear arms. Still, the "pro side" has some good data, especially as to the danger of "large capacity magazines."
Can some sort of compromise be supplied with perhaps some healthy "pro-Second Amendment" (something the top Democratic presidential candidates, including Dean, honored) wording tossed in? I doubt it. I honestly cannot make a final determination here because of a lack of true familiarity with the weaponry, but do have a feeling this is as much a partisan issue as a substantive one.
Some of the exaggerated rhetoric (typical of the subject) only worsens the situation. The ban will likely die, local and other federal laws will help deal with the crime problems, and the net result will be rather small. Negative or positive? I'm not sure. Overall, it would be great if both sides can agree on a basic statement that supports gun rights generally (though certain liberals will be loathe to do so), and compromise on some limited national policies with some real potential for success.
---
* The dissenters had the better argument, though the majority fit the ethos of the era. The law was held to be a "direct tax," which has to be apportioned by state population. What was the purpose of this provision (Art. I, sec. 9)? The concern was that thinly populated but land rich states (e.g. South Carolina) would be discriminated against by national revenue laws.
Thus, a 1790s law concerning a tax on carriages (in an early bit of judicial review) was upheld by the Supreme Court because the provision was held to basically be concerned with land and poll taxes (in particular, taxes on slaves). So, not only was an earlier income tax unanimously upheld in 1880 (though a war measure, the opinion didn't feel a need to justify it as such), but the constitutional concerns were elsewhere.