They may have something on the "Assault weapons ban".
Ignoring the fact that any publicly available semi-automatic rifle is functionally mechanically identical to any available traditional wooden stocked hunting/sporting rifle I would submit you can't own anything that looks "mean" or "intimidating" based on certain "characteristics" that are established by the Government. This, of course, is regardless of the existence of a Constitutional Amendment, incorporated recently following a number of law suits challenging the suppression of that right, but we are talking about the greater good here.
I'm talking about banning "Assault vehicles".
Under this legislation you can't own a Hummer or a really big pickup truck because they have lifts and push bumpers, really big spotlights and big tires.
You can't own a Jeep or a Range or Land Rover or Toyota pickup or SUV as they are used by military around the world and should not be re-purposed for civilian use.
While you'll need to prove you need a vehicle with a little extra capacity you will have to exchange them for passive looking small European panel vans.
They are not intimidating, are not re-purposed military vehicles put to civilian use and do not exhibit any military "characteristics".
Unfortunately even after this exchange not all towns, cities, states, Federal properties will permit their use but that is the price for protecting "The people".
You will also have to ban ownership of any vehicle that carries more than 4 people/excessive cargo.
This is due to the potential that you could carry more people to a gang or mass terror event.
You could also pack it with explosives and park it outside of a structure which is clearly a grave public threat.
Prohibit "mean" looking and high capacity vehicles - that is the heart of the "Assault vehicle ban".
You can have a Leaf-sized car after passing the requisite background checks and waiting period.
You can only purchase one if you have a car purchasing license.
And you can only fuel it if you have a fueling license.
You can't have either unless you pass a comprehensive licensing process to allow you to drive.
Of course some cities and states won't issue you one or any of the licenses but hey, that is their right - right?
And not all cities and states will even permit dealerships to sell "death on wheels" - in fact "Mayors against Cars" will really push for that.
Is any of that a barrier to entry, ownership or in violation of your 2nd Amendment vehicle ownership rights - pish, posh as it's for the greater good.
Plus - there is public transportation!
While you are at it seeing how +40K people a year are killed by cars now that we've outlawed vans, monster trucks, uhauls and the like we really need to find a way to cut down on cars in general.
Because the "assault vehicle ban" doesn't address the 'whole' problem and in addition to the deaths the injuries are just piling up we need to go even farther.
In order to address that we'll make fuel super expensive, widely unavailable or just have the EPA make it impossible to sell.
Of course this only addresses law abiding citizens.
While it suppresses private persons, manufacturers, 3rd party commercial vendors, transportation, etc. it's really important.
The impact on the economy will be addressed with the reduction in deaths and injuries which lowers healthcare costs.
Isn't that worth the price of a freedom only 30% of the Country uses?
Criminals may still have trucks, high capacity vans and the like but if others don't have them they will stand out like a sore thumb.
That will make it so much easier on law enforcement, allows citizen reporting, etc. It's a win win!
Oh, the fact that most criminals are not, in fact, driving monster trucks or panel vans but VW bugs and Yugos?
The fact that even criminals with monster trucks or panel vans use those infractions to plead down to jaywalking with zero deterrent effect?
We'll address that with better education and schools, green energy and employment retraining programs.
While I am being sarcastic as a law abiding citizen it's your right, secured by the 2nd Amendment, to keep and bear arms.
Driving, on the other hand, is not a right, it's a privilege.
Should criminals have illegal arms, a bazooka, RPGs, etc. no.
Are firearms, saturday night special handguns carried by most, now 'cost of doing business' for criminals, yes
Do they still have the right to free speech, free exercise of religion and due process?
Yes - and there are reasonable controls to ensure that.
Prosecute criminals for the "gun" crime, take away the 'cost of doing business' approach they have to them.
If guns are a big enough problem to suppress the Rights of 100% of the Citizenry it's worth the extra jail time for the criminals.
While people may not like it threatening one right for another is chilling and corrosive to all.
Just substitute "free speech" any time people want to suppress your right.
Think about how oppressive (impossible) it could be to exercise that right under the controls others want to force on you (forced to be incorporated under Heller/McDonald).
Protect your rights and the rights of others.