It creates a registry, which is a bad idea.
Then they know who has the 'eeee-vil' assault weapons and where to find them.
I'm willing to bet that it'll be reinterpreted every time the gun grabbers feel like confiscating something.
And, there are firearms that are legally owned that this would require registration on.
The term 'any firearm' is always a tipoff to a broader interpretation in the future, and bad intent.
I'd have to agree with darksheare. With the expiration of the assault weapons ban, the most pernicious gun laws are found on the state and local level. Most that I'm aware of have grandfather clauses, which the 1968 acquisition date might help with, but there's nothing to prevent grandfathering from being repealed. In Chicago, for example, handguns are legal only if owned prior to the enactment of their ban, 1982 I believe, and registered with the city. I presume an unregistered handgun registered under this act would become legal, but there's nothing preventing Mayor Daley from repealing the grandfather clause, in which case I suspect you'd get a letter followed by a knock on the door. This isn't a bad thing, but I don't see it as much of a positive. I'd guess the owner of an "assault weapon" in California would be "legal" on a federal level, which he was anyway, and illegal state. It might aid owners of fully auto weapons in states where they're allowed, presuming the get the federal licensing and pay the annual fee, but that's about all.
It does NOT "create a registry". (NFRTR)
That registry already exist, and has since 1934.
This bill attempts to allow the registry to be corrected, while protecting our veterans and their heirs from unjust prosecution and seizure of their very valuable property.
The genuine intent here is one of the most honest and commendable to come out of congress in decades!