We'll have to find out if binary triggers are included. Here's the text of the law straight from the bill:790.222 Bump-fire stocks prohibited.—A person may not import into this state or transfer, distribute, sell, keep for sale, offer for sale, possess, or give to another person a bump-fire stock. A person who violates this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, the term “bump-fire stock” means a conversion kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device used to alter the rate of fire of a firearm to mimic automatic weapon fire or which is used to increase the rate of fire to a faster rate than is possible for a person to fire such semiautomatic firearm unassisted by a kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device.
I could argue that a binary trigger is not a "kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device," but is instead an integral part of the firearm as it is an essential part of the firing mechanism.
But like all things, it will depend on how prosecutors and ultimately judges rule on the matter.
>
Bum[p] stocks are out, but how about binary triggers?
We’ll have to find out if binary triggers are included. Here’s the text of the law straight from the bill:
790.222 Bump-fire stocks prohibited.—A person may not import into this state or transfer, distribute, sell, keep for sale, offer for sale, possess, or give to another person a bump-fire stock. A person who violates this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, the term “bump-fire stock” means a conversion kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device used to alter the rate of fire of a firearm to mimic automatic weapon fire or which is used to increase the rate of fire to a faster rate than is possible for a person to fire such semiautomatic firearm unassisted by a kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device.
I could argue that a binary trigger is not a “kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device,” but is instead an integral part of the firearm as it is an essential part of the firing mechanism.
But like all things, it will depend on how prosecutors and ultimately judges rule on the matter.
>
And any lawyer could argue a belt down to the lowly rubber-band satisfies the “...a device used to alter the rate of fire of a firearm to mimic automatic weapon fire...”
All in all, the law is sh!t. As usual, does NOTHING vs. root cause, only more against the ever diminishing law-abiding populace.
Is this a fatal flaw in the language?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RdAhTxyP64