I'll omit yet another trillion word rant on the importance of preserving principle, or not being afraid to fight even if there's a chance of losing, or by making bad laws "better" it hurts us in the long run. Instead, I'll simply pose a question.
If you were a lawyer and wanted to win a case - any case - which of the following would you choose:
A challenge to a regulation that narrowly banned bump stocks, arguing it's unconstitutional
A challenge to a law banning bump stocks and trigger cranks that also criminalized lightened strikers, firing pins, and hammers; extra strength trigger springs, hammers springs and recoil springs; any lubricant with more viscosity than the heavy preservative grease slathered on at the factory by the manufacturer.
Fudd Me? No; Fudd You!
And Another Things