Per the WaPo, "assault weapons" have not fared well in the courts.
One does wonder, however - what is an assault weapon? This case caught my eye:
Another appeals court considered the issue in April 2015, when the Chicago-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit upheld by a 3 to 2 vote an ordinance in Highland Park, Ill., that prohibited possession of assault weapons, which the law defined as “any semiautomatic gun that can accept a large-capacity magazine.”
OK, not an expert but is there some reason a conventional semiautomatic hunting rifle lacking the Federal adornments of an "assault weapon" (1994 version) would NOT be able to accept a large capacity magazine? If Highland has successfully banned ALL semiautomatic rifles, well, that goes far beyond the proposed 'assault weapon' bans kicked up in Congress from time to time.
A semiautomatic rifle was considered an illicit assault weapon, for example, if it featured a detachable magazine, as well as at least two of the following five attributes: a folding or telescopic stock; a conspicuous pistol grip; a bayonet mount; a flash suppressor or threaded barrel (i.e., a barrel that can accommodate a flash suppressor); or a grenade launcher.
People familiar with the definition, i.e., roughly zero progressives or NY Times editors, don't grasp why adding a flash suppressor and/or bayonet and grenade launcher mount makes a conventional semiautomatic rifle more lethal. But we try to live and learn.
This NY Times explainer and a whiny NY Times article illustrate that removing the cosmetic features to comply with the law is simply "exploiting loopholes". Evidently something else is making an assault rifle an assault rifle, but the best legal minds in America can't put their finger on it. Baffling.