@George,
George wrote:But to be correct your reply should have been
"The law bans harmless cosmetic features when included on semi-automatic
weapons with detachable magazines."
Semi-automatic capability and detachable magazines are not cosmetic
features, they are functional as, of course, you know.
While your description is factually correct, I question how your added detail is at all relevant, and how my description is inaccurate for leaving out this detail.
If you ban harmless cosmetic features from semi-autos with detachable magazines, the only thing you are doing is banning harmless cosmetic features.
George wrote:What those who advocate such bans are against are weapons that allow
the shooter to fire a great many bullets in a very short time.
Banning harmless cosmetic features on such guns does nothing at all to prevent people from having such guns. It merely changes the appearance of those guns while still letting people freely have them.
Also, I don't know if you are familiar with strict scrutiny or the other standards of judicial review, but in general a law is only allowed to impact a Constitutional right if there is a compelling public reason for the law. If there isn't a good reason for having a law that impacts our rights, that law is found unconstitutional.
I've yet to hear anyone provide a compelling public reason for banning these harmless cosmetic features.
That means, even in the unlikely event that the gun banners manage somehow to get this law passed, as soon as the courts start enforcing the Second Amendment the law will be struck down. And in the meantime the law won't actually do anything besides really aggravate people who like pistol grips, getting them to vote in election after election.
George wrote:Would this rifle be banned?
No, but that does not change that this law would ban the use of pistol grips on other rifles.