Echo / Binary Triggers Not Same As Bump-Stocks...

S

Skans

New member
It seems to me that it would require two completely different laws to ban bump-stocks and binary pull-release triggers, since they do two completely different things. While both devices are legal under the laws as written, the definition of machine gun would need to be completely changed, or a completely new law which no longer permits a shot to be fired on the pull and release of the trigger would have to be drafted from scratch.

Do the legal scholars here think that any new laws relating to pull-release trigger would require registration? Or would be an outright confiscatory ban?
 
If you look at Di-Fi's bill it's 2 pages long and pretty broad/plain to read.
Binary triggers while I have not heard anyone mention them it's likely the same situation as bump stocks.. they simply don't know about them.

Im confident binary triggers would be banned under her bill as written.
But only bump stocks and trigger cranks are "named" there is still a broad stroke past that would sweep up binary triggers and possibly a lot of other things like light weight bolt carriers.

Remember the Assault weapon banned killed named specific models of guns.. but it also had broad language to snare guns not enumerated.
Thus I would not have much hope of binary trigger escaping the language.

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pu...71B98A52.automatic-gunfire-prevention-act.pdf

a trigger crank, a bump-fire device, or any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.
Click to expand...

Interestingly it would not regulate something targeted at handguns.
 
It would be easier to define what semi-auto is then to define everything that is not semi-auto. There would need to be some caveat about "incidental" to cover accidental double shots
 
Skans said:
Thanks, I read the Bill. I don't think that will get passed as written.
Click to expand...
Actually So far that's the only bill Im fairly confident would easily pass if it got a floor vote in the short term.

It's broad, would likely have unintended consequences beyond just bump stocks.. but it's only 2 pages long and specifically names those evil bump stocks.

It looks like they're gonna load up the plate to the point it breaks in half and nothing gets past but if DiFi's bill as written gets the floor.. I'd bet money it passes.

6 months from now probably not but in the short term.. ya It passes handily I think.
 
It depends on how things shake out.

If the ATF reclassifies bump stocks as MG's, then binary triggers will have to be addressed separately.

Otherwise, things like Feinstein's bill are wide enough to apply to binary triggers.

One issue with Feinstein's bill it that only applies to rifles.
 
The bill is written with so much wiggle room it is scary
...any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle...
Click to expand...
That is anything. Anything that changes a trigger pull to make it easier to pull, any thing that changes the reset to be shorter, any modification at all, especially to the fire control group, and think about something else - magazines that are easily changed out can "increase the rate of fire", standard capacity magazines are "parts that increase the rate of fire", because you can keep ON shooting without changing the magazine. Having to stop and change a mag will slow down "the rate of fire".
It's not what the bill SAY it can do, but what it can be TWISTED to do, and this time, it is entirely by design.
 
My biggest complaint with the discussed portion is, as well, its vagueness. For instance it may include "low recoil" ammunition as it is designed to accelerate the rate of fire.
 
A Bump Board can be constructed from a small board and a 1" wood rod. This Ban will include High Cap mags. There plan would bring back the Clinton AWB.
 
Regarding her bill, DiFi noted in political-eze there was no expectation to pass, but they intended to wave the flag:
"We’re introducing an updated Assault Weapons Ban for one reason: so that after every mass shooting with a military-style assault weapon, the American people will know that a tool to reduce these massacres is sitting in the Senate, ready for debate and a vote."
(My emphasis).
 
As I heard on NPR today, not the most right leaning news organization, 'we recently had a shooting where actual members of congress were targeted by a lone gun man utilizing a semi-automatic weapon and absolutely no legislative changes occurred. Who in their right mind thinks a shooting in Las Vegas is going to motivate them to act?'

I am really not all that worried about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top