To make it more illustrative, let's say that en lieu of a weapons ban, taxes were placed on all ammunition (or components to manufacture, for sake of argument) at $100/ea (e.g. a 4 cent 22LR round would now cost $100.04). e.g., prohibitively expensive and with the sole purpose of inhibiting the purpose of owning a gun (a protected 2A right). One could still own a gun, but without ammunition, you'd be better off beating down a perp with it.
Does social engineering have a limit?
My thoughts as well. Furthermore, transitioning anything with over 10rd magazines available into "class 3 weapons", per Feinstein's bill, essentially adds a $200 tax to own such a weapon. Under her law a $220 MSRP Ruger 10/22 with a 25rd mag (a glorified pellet gun) would be rated as a class 3 weapon.
In addition to the $200 tax, photographing and fingerprinting would be required. For a working class individual, this equates to taking at least 1/2 a day off of work, or an additional $100 + travel costs tax.
A working class person could own (10) 22lr guns with a sum total invested of $2,200 MSRP (likely half of that if purchased 5 years ago, on sale, or used). He/She would be responsible for $300 x 10 class 3 weapons = $3,000 in taxes on $2,200 worth of pellet guns.
Anybody who does not see the "social architecture" there is likely anti-gun and imposing their own unconstitutional views upon the rest of society.