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clauses, which the 1968 acquisition date might help with, but there's nothing to prevent grandfathering from being repealed.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.
Yeah, it just has way too much wiggle room for the gun grabbers.
Yes, it might aid owners of full auto's, which is what this bill is aimed at. Without the amnesty the weapon remains illegal and cannot be sold. The bill allows those who wish to sell the ability to do so, and those who wish to retain them some peace of mind. Naturally, those who do not wish to register them can ignore it, and remain in the shadows, waitin' fer the day they will be needed.