What makes you think you can understand a complex bill written in legal language?
This brings up a germane point.
We all (mostly) reasonably understand "ignorantia legis neminem excusat" as a first principal. We in the arms-bearing community may feel it even more sharply than most, our privileges to own being derived from having to constantly prove oursleves more virtuous than the wife of Caesar.
So, if our laws become (or have become) so complex that
only those with specialized and specific education can know them, how can a reasonably-knowledgeable person be said to be not ignorant of them?
At what point do such laws
ipso facto violate our 4th, 5th, & 6th Amendment rights?
Nine pages on this topic, and dozens of posts all arguing over an interpretation of a conjunction. One, I, personally, feel is quite clear in that those states that require prior government permission to sell a firearm will not be required to get more permission. States with FOIP, or CT's new laws, in other words.
Personally, I am convinced we have this not merely backwards, but upside down as well. What we should be doing is finding ways not to identify the huge majority of the law-abiding (removing an onus of presumed
mens rea conveyed by mere ownership) to one of identifying the tinier minority those known to be prohibited.
By stingy numbers there are around 30 million gun owners, this versus perhaps 3 million prohibited persons--and the legal presumption is that the legal ones much continue to prove innocence? This is roughly akin to requiring all airline passengers to demonstrate that they have the ability to fly a plane before riding in one.
Could we get back to a presumption that a well-regulated militia does not include substance abusers, the incompetent, nor high criminals? Or that '[E]very terrible implement of the soldier..." ought be the definition?