07-05-2021, 06:33 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-05-2021, 08:21 PM by lazyengineer.)
The difference between the bumpstock ban and the pistol armbrace ban, is that one of those is a device for no other purpose than to be a firing rate enhancer, and the other is for the purpose of aiding a shooter fire a pistol.
Either could be "misused", but the arm-brace purpose, is established and proven, and still authorized even now per the new rules (At its heart at least). While on bumpstocks - here's the case they are going to make, like it or not: a bumpstock causes the rifle to fire multiple discharges with one user-initiated pull, and then uses nuances to cause the firearm to engage the trigger finger and continue firing multiple times per the one "actuation", without additional operator selected action (i.e. the subsequent shots aren't legitimate "actuation"). If you don't like what I wrote, that's nice, but that's the case the DA is going to make, and depending on the judge, he'll win easily. If it makes it the Supreme Court, they'll take 2 years to decide, fixate on some irrelevant nuance and send it back to the lower court to decide again; and then refuse to hear it in 5 years. That's what you can expect from the USSC.
But its not quite as easy for the Federal Attorney to make that same case for any plain firearm that happens to also be easy to bump-fire, since that's not the design intent nor typical. Nor can he as easily make the same case for an arm-brace, since its design intent is legitimate usage is a pistol firing enhancer; not a stock. But once the case is made that a bumpstock is a multiple-discharge device per user conscious actuation, then it becomes very easy to blanket ban them all per federal code, which requires one user actuation per fire. All they have to say, is the gun bumping against your stationary finger, is not legitimately a user actuation.
We'll see how this plays out - but that's my crystal ball. Not saying I approve of any of it.
Either could be "misused", but the arm-brace purpose, is established and proven, and still authorized even now per the new rules (At its heart at least). While on bumpstocks - here's the case they are going to make, like it or not: a bumpstock causes the rifle to fire multiple discharges with one user-initiated pull, and then uses nuances to cause the firearm to engage the trigger finger and continue firing multiple times per the one "actuation", without additional operator selected action (i.e. the subsequent shots aren't legitimate "actuation"). If you don't like what I wrote, that's nice, but that's the case the DA is going to make, and depending on the judge, he'll win easily. If it makes it the Supreme Court, they'll take 2 years to decide, fixate on some irrelevant nuance and send it back to the lower court to decide again; and then refuse to hear it in 5 years. That's what you can expect from the USSC.
But its not quite as easy for the Federal Attorney to make that same case for any plain firearm that happens to also be easy to bump-fire, since that's not the design intent nor typical. Nor can he as easily make the same case for an arm-brace, since its design intent is legitimate usage is a pistol firing enhancer; not a stock. But once the case is made that a bumpstock is a multiple-discharge device per user conscious actuation, then it becomes very easy to blanket ban them all per federal code, which requires one user actuation per fire. All they have to say, is the gun bumping against your stationary finger, is not legitimately a user actuation.
We'll see how this plays out - but that's my crystal ball. Not saying I approve of any of it.