From an attorney:
Have you considered the following scenario?
The US Supreme Court recently split evenly on assault rifle bans enacted by two States. The result is that the lower Federal Court decisions upholding the bans is law.
Now consider Obama’s recent threats concerning North Carolina’s and Texas’ refusal to implement his transgender bathroom mandate. He told the States that if they didn’t do what he mandated, he would order withholding of Federal reimbursement to their school systems. To its credit, Texas told him what he could do with his reimbursement monies.
Now, combine the two.
Since the US Supreme Court said States can legally ban civilian ownership of “assault rifles,” he (or Hillary) can (theoretically at least) order the States to enact bans on civilian ownership of “assault rifles” and back up his mandate by threatening to withhold ALL Federal reimbursements—for roads, schools, Medicaid, Obamacare, everything. Texas may be able to “eat” school reimbursement, but could any State survive the economic loss of ALL Federal money, especially with Federal programs mandated?
The result would be State action banning civilian ownership (not Federal action), coupled with State (not Federal) enforcement. He could laugh while the underlings did his bidding against the peasants—all the while washing his hands in Pilate’s bowl.
Would his doing so risk civil war? Yes, but unless the States defied him (and could back it up at their borders), the resulting civil war would be between free men and their own state governments.
Saul Alinsky would be pleased with his disciple, male or female.
Or, he could just wait until Hillary packs a majority on the US Supreme Court to redefine HELLER and eviscerate the Second Amendment.
Both options are “legal” now.