U.S. appeals court strikes down Trump's ban on bump stocks

Ok, but any replacement semi-automatic trigger kit would also “enable rapid fire” because any semi-automatic firearm is capable of it.

If you want to craft legislation that has any hopes of getting passed.it needs to apply to the thing you want to ban, and not to apply to a much larger benign category of products because of overly broad language.

Banning them is possible with the correct language that defines how they function, as I mentioned above.

But I haven’t said that. I am using the AWB as an example of what not to do. If you want to ban bump stocks, then you want a law that actually bans them. Not something that only bans certain kinds. If you want a new AWB you want something like CAs or NYs, which are pretty solid, while the 1994 was not. Sure, I guess you get a “victory” of a baby step of legislation, but it wouldn’t actually stop assault weapons from being sold.

I just found this 2004 Bushmaster catalog, from the last year of the ban. The first two images are the Post-Ban models, meaning new guns 100% legal to head down to an FFL and purchase. The third image is what cops can order with none of the restrictions. (I’ll post at the bottom of the post.)

This is my point: you need to craft good, careful and exact legislation that does what you want it to do. It isn’t to say that it’s too hard and can’t be done. It’s to say that that is IS hard but CAN be done.

OK fine - but my reply was to “Competition shooting doesn’t require a high rate of fire.” Which in many sports it does. SASS uses old west “cowboy” guns like single action revolvers and lever actions and they still do rapid fire shooting. The idea there aren’t rapid fire competitions is wrong.

OK. I never said you can’t ban bumpstocks and not still have competitive shooting. I said something overly broad could be interpreted by the ATF to include a lot things that isn’t intended to be banned.

I think I found the law relating to bump stocks in Canada:

1 Any electrical or mechanical device that is designed or adapted to operate the trigger mechanism of a semi-automatic firearm for the purpose of causing the firearm to discharge cartridges in rapid succession.

The way this is worded is - a device is banned if it operates the trigger to cause it to discharge rapidly.

This covers extra parts acting upon the trigger, not the actual trigger itself, which could be modified to be lighter, shorter, and smoother.

So yes, I agree this law seems to be specific enough to ban the items you want to ban, with out being overly broad.

Then maybe google it before making a statement?

I have a friend who competes in USPSA, is an instructor, and is a Grand Master rank in multiple division, which means his scores are in the 95th-100th percentile. He can shoot like a John Wick movie as far as rapid fire goes and he is scoring all Alpha hits (there are three scoring rings, Alpha, Charlie, Delta). Even people who aren’t in his class are making most of their hits on target, albeit a little slower, or a few less hits in the Alpha ring. It takes skill to manage recoil and some gear can help you shoot faster (triggers, compensators, sights/red dots, even loading your own ammo).

So, yahoo doing a mag dump into a berm is hitting nothing. Someone running a competition course is scoring mostly hits, even those who are “average” Class C shooters.

You’re right there is a lot of Nirvana Fallacy out there. But there also is the opposite of that where a lot of frankly dumb, impractical ideas, or ideas that will have a lot of unintended consequences being suggested and then when someone points out those negatives they just get slurs tossed at them.

I’m not engaging in Nirvana Fallacy. Above I said how to specifically ban bump stocks (albeit my language wouldn’t be the final draft, but it shows general idea), and I say if you want to ban AW you want to copy CA or NY, not Federal 1994.

If someone is telling you which laws WOULD work, while telling you which ones would not, then I would take notes and see if maybe the ones that would work make sense. I am sure many of you would like to see a CA or NY style AWB, not the 1994 one . YMMV.

(Scans mentioned above are below. Again the point here is that a 1994 AWB did not ban AW)
Post Ban legal

Post Ban legal

Post Ban Law Enforcement Only - after the ban expired, legal except for the last two are NFA SBR.