> Slight digression, but does that mean owning assault weapons is a ok again in the US? Just curious.
It depends what is meant by "assault weapon". If you mean fully automatic weapons, then no, but those were essentially banned (with minor exceptions) for private ownership in 1986[0]. Ownership of those had been regulated since 1934[1]. The 1994–2004 "assault weapons" ban covered specific features[2] on guns. Since 2004, purchase of guns with (2 or more of) those features is once again legal. Note that some opposed to the 1994 assault weapons ban claim many of the features are cosmetic, rather than functional.
What do you consider an assault weapon? Fully automatic guns have been and still are illegal without proper permits. The problem with the ban referred to in the GP, is that it was mostly a superficial feel good law. Take a normal hunting rifle, add some cosmetic changes and suddenly it is an assault weapon under the old ban. Add that most gun crimes are committed with hand guns, and the ban amounted to nothing more than a news soundbite.
Depending on your definition of 'assault', yet. In the US is was essentially defined by the number of features your rifle was allowed to have, and indeed there is no longer a limit. It's hard (>$20k to buy a used one) to get a fully automatic rifle.
> Oh yeah, has been since Bush the second let the ban lapse.
The ban expired because that's what was in the original law. There were efforts to pass a new ban, but they didn't even make it out of committee[0]. Perhaps a presidential endorsement could have helped it go farther, but one can't hold the president responsible for what happens in the Senate and House committees.
