Category: Crap For Brains

Deer hunting causes gun violence, researchers claim
Researchers admit their data was flawed, use it anyway.

In what may be the most poorly conceived and horribly researched study ever published by The Journal of the American Medical Association during its entire 141-year history, a trio of anti-gun researchers now claims deer hunting is associated with a substantial increase in firearm violence.

To arrive at their laughable conclusion, the authors used data from the infamous Gun Violence Archive, which has been debunked dozens of times and is well known for its shoddy research and biased statistics.

Even the authors admitted there were problems with the GVA data. “Our study relies on shooting data from a single source, the GVA. Data from GVA have been shown to have a bias toward incidents that receive more media attention and do not include comprehensive counts of firearm suicides,” the report states.

Despite these inherent biases, the researchers used the GVA data anyway. They didn’t allow the facts to interfere with their preconceived and biased narrative.

The report, “Deer Hunting Season and Firearm Violence in US Rural Counties,” which was released Wednesday, was written by Patrick Sharkey, PhD; Juan Camilo Cristancho, BA, and Daniel Semenza, PhD.

Sharkey is affiliated with Princeton University’s School of Public and International Affairs. Cristancho works at the University of California, Irvine’s School of Education, and Semenza is affiliated with the New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center at Rutgers University.

The researchers sought to investigate “the association between the start of deer hunting season and shootings in rural counties of the US.”

They compared shootings during the first three weeks of deer season to a week prior to the season opener. The authors claim there was a “substantial increase in shootings” during the start of deer season, which they said calls for additional gun control, of course.

“The findings highlight the role of firearm prevalence in gun violence and suggest the need for focused policies designed to reduce firearm violence in areas with substantial hunting activity during the first weeks of deer hunting season,” the report states.

About the author

Patrick Sharkey, PhD, led the research team.

“Dr. Sharkey had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis,” his report claims.

According to his Princeton bio, Sharkey’s research focuses on “urban inequality, violence, and public policy.” He is also the creator of AmericanViolence.org, a website that claims it provides “comprehensive, updated data on violence from as many of the largest 100 largest U.S. cities as possible.”

AmericanViolence.org, like Sharkey’s recent study, relies upon debunked data. “In the latest iteration of the site we have drawn more heavily on data on fatal and nonfatal shootings published by the Gun Violence Archive, an excellent resource that has tracked all forms of gun violence in the United States over time,” the website states.

Continue reading “”

Maryland, AR-15s and the Fourth Circuit

Should you be so unfortunate as to live in Maryland, and more unfortunate as to own an AR-15, you’re a criminal, as the Fourth Circuit Court recently affirmed. This despite the Supreme Court’s Heller, McDonald and Bruen decisions having made clear the Second Amendment acknowledges the individual right to self-defense in one’s home and elsewhere, and common and usual weapons are presumptively constitutional. Unfortunately none of those decisions specifically mention the AR-15, the most popular—common and usual–rifle of its type in America. This opened the gun ban door a crack, which the 4th Circuit majority used to push the door wide open:

We have described the AR-15’s capacities in abundant detail to demonstrate just how far outside the animating purposes of the Second Amendment this weapon lies. While we know that the AR-15 thrives in combat, mass murder, and overpowering police, appellants have failed to demonstrate that the weapon is suitable for self-defense. This is likely because such a showing would be difficult to make. Indeed, many of the weapon’s combat-functional features make it ill-suited for the vast majority of self-defense situations in which civilians find themselves.

It would be hard to imagine a more deceptive and less informed recitation of legal mush. The majority decision goes on to claim the “heightened firepower” of the AR-15 is a terrible risk of overpenetration, and the 30-round magazine, standard since the Vietnam era, is also useful for mass murder, because self-defense shootings commonly only involve a few shots. The majority would also have us believe the AR-15 is particularly useless for home defense. They conclude their specious arguments with this:

In sum, the AR-15—with its military origination, combat-functional features, and extraordinary lethality—has “the same basic characteristics, functionality, capabilities, and potential for injury as the M-16.” And its all too frequent use in terrorism, mass killing, and police murder shows that the AR-15 offers firepower ill-suited and disproportionate to fulfilling the Second Amendment’s purpose of armed self-defense. Therefore, just like the M16, the AR-15 is “most useful in military service” and “may be banned” consistent with the Second Amendment.

Where to begin? The AR-15 has been on the civilian market since the 1960s, and while Armalite—“Armalite Rifle,” not “Assault Rifle” certainly wanted military contracts, only the Air Force initially adopted the rifle for base defense. The Army eventually adopted it, and after decades of development, the select-fire M4, not available to civilians, is the current issued rifle.

Both the M4 and AR-15, the M4’s semiautomatic only, look-alike cousin, fire the .223/5.56 NATO cartridge, which is of only intermediate power, and has long been known as an unreliable penetrator and man stopper. The Military is currently developing a higher-powered cartridge, and rifle.

Is the AR-15 a “common and usual” arm?  Best estimates place more than 23 million in citizen’s hands. However, Americans have purchased more than a million guns a month for 60 straight months, so that figure is surely low.

“Firepower” is a military concept inappropriately applied to individual arms. The majority’s argument is emotion-laden and obviously taken directly from the writings of anti-liberty/gun cracktivists, while the dissent is well-reasoned, relying on the law, the Founder’s intent and accurate history.

Obviously, the AR-15 is not “most useful in military service,” which is why the automatic-fire capable M4 is the issue military rifle. Gun banners hope to be able to ban any class of firearms, in this case, a semiautomatic rifle of intermediate power. That precedent, if upheld, would allow the banning of all semiautomatic firearms, which, like the AR-15, are useful for self-defense.

They also hope to ban “large capacity” magazines for the same reasons by using the same tactics. While it’s true most armed encounters involve relatively few rounds fired, attacks by multiple armed thugs are becoming more common, in and out of the home. In such encounters, a 30-round magazine can be the difference between life and death.

Certainly, we carry handguns because it’s difficult to carry long guns of any type as we go about our daily business, but because handguns are more convenient does not make rifles unconstitutional. Anyone knowingly entering an armed encounter with less than a rifle is looking to die. The police are increasingly abandoning shotguns and adopting AR-15s for patrol carry. Are the police now the military? Should citizens be less well armed, less able to defend themselves?

The 4th Circuit has now clearly established a split among the lower courts, which will allow the Supreme Court to grant cert and further define the limitations of the state in banning popular, common and usual guns. In our uncertain times, a decision in line with their Heller, McDonald and Bruen jurisprudence would be welcome, and conducive to the preservation of our representative republic.

Federal Appeals Court Again Upholds Maryland AR-15 Ban

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has once again found Maryland’s so-called assault weapons ban is constitutional.

In a ten-to-five ruling on Tuesday, a full panel of the appeals court determined the Old Line state’s ban on AR-15s and similar firearms does not violate the Second Amendment. It found the banned guns fall outside the protections guaranteed by the Constitution. Using similar reasoning to the last time the panel ruled on the same law in 2021, the majority decided semi-automatic assault weapons are too similar to military weapons to fall under the Second Amendment.

“The assault weapons at issue fall outside the ambit of protection offered by the Second Amendment because, in essence, they are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense,” Judge Harvie Wilkinson wrote for the majority in Bianchi v. Brown. “Moreover, the Maryland law fits comfortably within our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation.”

A lot has changed in Second Amendment jurisprudence since the appeals court ruled on the ban in 2021. The most significant was the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established a new test for Second Amendment cases. The Court then vacated the Fourth Circuit’s ruling in Bianchi and sent it back down for reconsideration in light of the new test. The Fourth Circuit delivering the same result once again could provide reason for The Court to take up the case, especially since it has now reached a final conclusion on the merits.

The Supreme Court has been reluctant to take up Second Amendment cases in recent months and declined to grant certiorari in all of its pending gun cases last month. That included denying a request to take up a collection of cases challenging the Illinois assault weapons ban. However, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that reluctance was based on the fact those cases were at the preliminary injunction stage rather than final judgment.

“This Court is rightly wary of taking cases in an interlocutory posture,” Justice Thomas wrote. “But, I hope we will consider the important issues presented by these petitions after the cases reach final judgment. We have never squarely addressed what types of weapons are ‘Arms’ protected by the Second Amendment.”

The Fourth Circuit did address what types of arms are protected or, at least, which ones aren’t. The majority looked primarily at the Supreme Court’s holding in 2008’s DC v. Heller decision, which recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms while striking down the city’s handgun ban, as well as dicta in the case.

“As recognized in Heller, ‘the Second Amendment right … extends only to certain types of weapons’; it is ‘not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,’” Judge Wilkinson, a Ronald Reagan appointee, wrote for the majority. “Arms typically used by average citizens for self-defense are generally within the ambit of the Second Amendment, presumably because these arms had proven over time to effectively amplify an individual’s power to protect himself without empowering him to singlehandedly reign terror upon a community.”

Judge Wilkinson pointed to Heller‘s description of short-barrel shotguns and “M-16 rifles and the like” as weapons the government can ban. He said there was a common thread that connected those firearms, which also extends to semi-automatic AR-15s and the other guns Maryland bans.

“What brings all the weapons beyond the scope of the Second Amendment together, and what separates them from the handgun, is their ability to inflict damage on a scale or in a manner disproportionate to the end of personal protection,” he wrote. “As such, they are weapons most suitable for criminal or military use.”

The majority then turned its attention to the Bruen test, which requires modern gun laws to be rooted in the history and tradition of firearms regulation dating back to the Founding Era in order to withstand scrutiny. In what has become the post-Bruen go-to legal reasoning to uphold modern gun bans, the majority asserted it could take a broader view of historical analogues because it argued assault weapons are a modern invention that has fueled the modern problem of mass shootings. It then pointed to early regulations on gunpowder storage and the carrying of Bowie knives as substantially similar to Maryland’s ban on the sale of modern semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15.

“In sum, then, 18th and 19th century legislatures’ passed laws in a number of states that restricted the use or ownership of certain types of weapons,’ once it ‘became obvious that those weapons … were being used in crime by people who carried them concealed on their persons and were thus contributing to rising crime rates,’” Judge Wilkinson wrote. “These legislatures—in balancing individual rights and public peacekeeping—permitted individuals to defend themselves with firearms, while ridding the public sphere of excessively dangerous and easily concealable weapons that were primarily to blame for an increase in violent deaths.”

Ultimately, as they did before the Supreme Court handed down its Bruen decision and remanded the case, the majority concluded Maryland’s assault weapons ban is constitutional.

“The Supreme Court has made clear that the Second Amendment is an integral component of the Bill of Rights. But as our nation’s history has shown, it is ‘neither a regulatory straightjacket nor a regulatory blank check.’ The Amendment has not disabled the ability of representative democracy to respond to an urgent public safety crisis,” Judge Wilkinson wrote. “To disregard this tradition today—when mass slaughters multiply and the innovation of weaponry proceeds apace—could imperil both the perception and reality of well-being in our nation. We therefore hold that Maryland’s regulation of assault weapons is fully consistent with our nation’s long and dynamic tradition of regulating excessively dangerous weapons whose demonstrable threat to public safety led legislatures to heed their constituents’ calls for help.”

The dissenting judges disagreed with that conclusion and slammed the majority for treating the Second Amendment as lesser than other protections offered in the Bill of Rights.

“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right subject to the whimsical discretion of federal judges. Its mandate is absolute and, applied here, unequivocal,” Judge Julius N. Richardson, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote for the dissent. “Appellants seek to own weapons that are indisputably ‘Arms’ within the plain text of the Second Amendment. While history and tradition support the banning of weapons that are both dangerous and unusual, Maryland’s ban cannot pass constitutional muster as it prohibits the possession of arms commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. In holding otherwise, the majority grants states historically unprecedented leeway to trammel the constitutional liberties of their citizens.”

Courts Attacking Second Amendment Right to Legally Acquire Firearms

There’s an interesting – if not devious – trend emerging in some Second Amendment cases. The first step of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen test is to ask whether the conduct at issue is covered by the text of the Second Amendment which protects a pre-existing “right to keep and bear arms.”  Some lower courts in purporting to apply the Bruen test are upholding gun control laws by holding that you do not have a Second Amendment right to buy a firearm.

That’s intellectually dishonest, to say the least. The ability to freely approach the gun counter to legally purchase a firearm is paramount to exercising the Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. There is no “keeping” of firearms if there is no legal right to lawfully acquire those same firearms. The ramifications of this flawed legal reasoning are self-evident. The government could simply ban the buying (and selling) of firearms and therefore eviscerate the Second Amendment all without infringing upon the right.

Right to Buy

The most recent example comes from New Mexico, where a federal district court judge refused to preliminarily enjoin the state’s seven-day waiting period for purchasing a firearm. There were several serious concerns with this decision, including the judge’s determination that the lengthy waiting period doesn’t constrain the rights to keep and bear arms. The judge contended that the waiting period only minimally burdens the “ancillary right to acquire firearms.”

That might come as news to an individual facing imminent threat to their safety or even their life. A woman who is the victim of domestic violence who considers purchasing a firearm to protect herself and her family could argue that the state’s seven-day waiting period is a seven-day ban on her ability to lawfully keep and bear arms when she knows there’s a threat to her life.

Continue reading “”

Still In Denial

NRA President Bob Barr sent out an email to the Board of Directors this afternoon. It noted that the bench portion of the New York trial was coming to a close on Monday, July 29th. The gist of the email which is below is that there is no need for a special monitor, it is invasive and detrimental to the NRA, and that since 2018 the NRA has cleaned up its act. Barr went on to say he was not fully quoted with regard to recouping the $4 million plus owed to the NRA by Wayne LaPierre. In that, he may be correct.

I said in late May that Barr had the ability to regain the trust of members and to reassure the court that a special monitor was not needed through his committee appointments. I said it needed to be transparent and that Mssrs. Cotton and Coy must never be allowed to remain on the Audit and Finance Committees. I also suggested that members of the Four for Reform ought to be considered for important committee assignments.

Disappointingly, Barr all but assured that Judge Cohen will feel that he has no option but to appoint a special monitor with his committee assignments. First, not only was Charles Cotton allowed to remain as chair of the Audit Committee but was added to the Ethics Committee as the chair. Second, David Coy remains as chair of the Finance Committee. Third, the anti-reform Cabal holds all the chair and vice-chair positions on the major committees for whom appointments have been made public. Only Rocky Marshall of the Four for Reform was given a major committee assignment and “Gang of 12” reformers are in a minority on all the committees. Barr had a chance but in my opinion he blew it.

Barr and, by extension, the Board are still in denial. They can say they have made changes and point to the hiring of a Chief Compliance Officer among other things. They can say their expert witnesses all testified to improvements, to not needing a special compliance monitor, and that this is the “new” NRA. The NRA publications can write about the NRA’s “new direction” and run headlines saying “the future of the NRA is bright.”

What they fail to understand is that the rank and file members of the NRA don’t trust them. Trust, once lost, is hard to regain. Hopes were raised at the last Board meeting with the election of ostensible reformers to major positions and then the committee assignments dashed that hope. We see that the people that allowed Wayne and his pack of grifters to get away with it for years are still running things. We read that the NRA has paid at least $182 million in legal fees to Bill Brewer and his minions all the while thinking what that money could have done for the Second Amendment. We know the members voted for a Chief Compliance Officer but then hear it whispered about how he has blown off serious whistleblower complaints. And the list goes on.

I could go on but I think I’ll just post the email and let you, the reader, come to your own conclusion.

From Bob Barr as sent out by John Frazer:

Dear Board of Directors,

As you know, the NRA is nearing the end of “phase two” of the trial proceedings versus the New York Attorney General (NYAG). The bench trial began on July 15, and will conclude on Monday, July 29. As reported to the board on July 4, a focal point of the proceedings is the NYAG’s pursuit of a court-appointed monitor with sweeping powers. On behalf of the Special Litigation Committee (SLC), please note that the NYAG’s court filing, Exhibit O, reflects an invasive measure that we believe is absolutely detrimental to the Association and its mission.

Of course, it is no surprise that the NYAG, who filed suit to dissolve the NRA, is peddling its “version” of the story. However, the trial testimony has shown that, beginning in 2018, the NRA undertook to prevent any override of its financial controls. Extensive testimony has clearly established the NRA’s commitment to good governance. Importantly, there has been no evidence that the NRA is not appropriately managing its assets; and there is no ongoing or persistent violation of its internal controls – all alleged by the NYAG.

Our senior staff members, board members, and experts offered powerful testimony regarding our heightened commitment to compliance training, and the important role played by our Chief Compliance Officer and our Internal Auditor. As such, we believe there is no need for the court to impose invasive equitable relief. Doing so would have a chilling effect on our organization’s ability to fulfill its mission and cultivate grassroots support, donations, and public goodwill. For these many reasons, I am optimistic we will achieve a positive outcome for the NRA and its millions of members.

On Thursday, the court heard testimony from Daniel Kurtz, the former New York State Assistant Attorney General-in-Charge of the Charities Bureau. He testified that he sees “New York State both persecuting and prosecuting the NRA,” and noted the NYAG’s pursuit of a monitor is “crazy, unprecedented.” He added, “There’s never been a situation, to my knowledge, in which a monitor has been appointed to reform the nonprofit governance of an organization” – equating New York’s pursuit of the NRA to McCarthyism and the Second Red Scare of the 1940s and 1950s.

In closing, know that no board officer, including myself, has ever suggested the NRA would not seek to recover any final awards owed to the NRA by individual defendants. At trial, I testified that I assumed the NRA was still finalizing its plans in this regard. My full testimony (conveniently not publicized via “X” and other social media platforms) explained this is because no final awards have yet been confirmed, and the NYAG bears the responsibility to pursue the recoveries in question. The NYAG is responsible for securing the awards because of her standing as the plaintiff in these proceedings. The NRA, of course, is committed to holding the NYAG’s feet to the fire and pursuing every dollar to which it is entitled, period. 

The bottom line is, I remain optimistic that despite attempts to distort the NRA’s commitment to good governance, the court appreciates and understands our record. The NRA and its many witnesses have presented a true picture of the Association – one that is dedicated now and in the future to achieving the best interests of our members in all we do.

Thanks,

Bob Barr, President 

Europe Doesn’t Want to Be Saved.

It hasn’t been a good week for Europe, and the news isn’t getting any better. In almost poetic fashion, the United Kingdom delivered itself into the clutches of the radical left on the Fourth of July, sweeping the socialist Labour Party into power.

Here’s how that’s going.

 

Keir Starmer is the new far-left prime minister, and oddly enough, his plan to release tens of thousands of criminals didn’t make it into the platform he ran on. Couple that with continued mass migration of Islamists, and you can guess how things are going to turn out long term. As bad as things have been in the United Kingdom over the last decade, the decline will accelerate.

Then there’s the French. After a surprise first round elevated the right-wing National Rally Party, the country’s far-left, from Emmanual Macron to the literal communists, colluded to win the second round. That included pushing hundreds of candidates to strategically drop out of their races to ensure the left wing held enough seats to form a coalition. French voters happily played along.

As in the UK, the results were predictable. Win or lose, there were going to be riots because that’s what European leftists do, with Palestinian flags marking the pro-migration messaging.

I wish I could say there’s hope for Western Europe, but the sad reality is that Europeans don’t want to be saved. These elections weren’t rigged. Voters chose this path, and now they are going to get the consequences good and hard.

By 2050, Muslims are projected to make up 14 percent of Europe’s population, but that’s not evenly distributed. Many Eastern European countries held the line with sane immigration policies, leading to the largest growth of Islamism occurring in Western Europe, including France and the United Kingdom. From there, it’s just a matter of time because Muslims nearly double the birth rate of native Europeans.

What is the solution? There is no solution. Europeans are more concerned with not being called bigots than preserving their freedoms and cultures. The welfare state will continue to grow, the economic malaise will deepen, and the downward slope toward Islamism will continue, not because of some nefarious force behind the scenes but because Europeans wanted this.

To that I say, I let it burn. You can only help those who want to be helped. The French, the Brits, and other surrounding nations do not want to be helped. They truly believe they can push forward with their left-wing ideals to form a better continent. They are mistaken, and eventually, they’ll figure that out. By then, it will have long been too late.

I will say this. When violence inevitably breaks out and Europeans once again look to the United States to bail them out, I have a feeling most Americans aren’t going to be interested. Can you blame them?

Former Judge has Crap for Brains

Quote of the Day

One problem with the court’s approach is that it is formalist, pedantic—soulless.
It wrongly suggests that the court should give the words in a statute a form-over- substance significance that focuses on dictionaries, and historic word usage while ignoring the basic right at stake or the basic evil a law aims at ending.

In the abortion case, an anti-abortion court could have turned the decision on weighing a life or potential life protected by the Constitution against the liberty of a woman to control her own body—another right protected by the Constitution.
Rather than methodically marching to the foregone conclusion that women had no rights historically, the court could have overturned Roe simply by restriking the balance of rights in favor of a life or potential life that might be lost in abortion.

Rather than spending their time fixated on the interior life of a gun, the court in Cargill could have considered what the law was obviously aimed at limiting—guns that mindlessly spew multitudes of bullets and threaten public safety. Laws have values in them—life, liberty, public safety, etc., and when the court ignores them in favor of games with words, it undermines respect for the institution.

Thomas G. Moukawsher
Former Connecticut complex litigation judge and a former co-chair of the American Bar Association Committee on Employee Benefits. June 25, 2024
Bump-Stock Ruling Reveals a Supreme Court Obsessed With Word Play | Opinion (msn.com)

I dropped my jaw in amazement reading this.
He thinks judges should weigh the pros and cons and examine how they feel about the topic to decide the case?
Really?
That is the job of the legislators when making the laws. If he were to have it his way we would end up with bump stocks being legal or illegal depending upon which judge was assigned to our case. Abortion doctors and the women who employed their services would be sent to jail or on their way, again, depending on what judge they were assigned or perhaps even the mood of the judge that day.

Word mean things and the law depends on the precise meaning of the words used to create those law. If not, then the result will be injustice and chaos. You just won’t know what is an ordinary everyday activity and what a multiple year felony.

This guy is a former judge! Well, maybe this is the reason he is a former judge. He has crap for brains.

Supreme Court backs Biden administration in social media case

Held: Neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established Article III standing to seek an injunction against any defendant. 
[In other words, we aren’t going to rule on this because…..reasons. So the federal goobermint can go right ahead and keep on doing this slimy crap]

Respondents are two States and five individual social-media users
who sued dozens of Executive Branch officials and agencies, alleging
that the Government pressured the platforms to censor their speech in
violation of the First Amendment.

Following extensive discovery, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that both the state plaintiffs and the individual plaintiffs had Article III standing to seek injunctive relief.

On the merits, the court held that the Government entities and officials, by “coerc[ing]” or “significantly encourag[ing]” the platforms’ moderation decisions, transformed those decisions into state action. The court then modified the District Court’s injunction to state that the defendants shall not coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to suppress protected speech on their platforms.

 

CHICAGO EDITORIAL BOARD: ‘WORRIFYING’ THAT LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNERS ARE DEFENDING THEMSELVES

Last weekend, Chicagoans witnessed a weekend that saw at least 71 people shot. Tragically, nine of the victims died from their injuries. Just two weeks ago, Chicagoans survived a weekend that saw at least 44 people shot. Tragically, at least eight of the victims died from their injuries.

In a city where criminals know they can get away with violence and criminal shootings – even when police are involved – it’s not surprising that law-abiding Chicagoans would consider arming themselves and, God-forbid, having to use their firearm for self-defense or to protect their families.

That’s just too much for The Chicago Tribune editorial board. The media masters there went out and did the most editorial board thing possible and decried such a trend.

“Worryingly, we’re seeing more signs of that phenomenon in Chicago, with three separate episodes over the last weekend in which would-be victims proved to be both armed and willing to fire at their assailants,” the board chose to write.

It must be nice to live in such an Ivory Tower.

Continue reading “”

You literally can not make this up.

Here’s the demoncrap BUMP ACT ‘‘Banning Unlawful Machinegun Parts Act of 2023″ bill that was shot down today, and will keep getting shot down as it’s quite easy to see that it would ban a lot more than ‘bump stocks’.
In fact it would ban simply doing a trigger job that would lighten the trigger pull weight or travel as well as match triggers made by many different companies like Geissele, LaRue, J&T, etc.

bump_act_bill_text