AWBs are incoherent and irrational. The feature tests are a manifestation of that. But the lack of them doesn't fix the irrationality of the whole idea.
I don't think mandatory licensure of tactical rifles is an irrational idea at all.
And I'm not sure how licensure comes into this. Neither the 1994 FAWB nor the proposal you linked license the possession of "tactical rifles." They ban them with grandfathering. And for what it's worth, I don't think licensure regimes necessarily are irrational.
I think in the 1980s an outright ban on tactical rifles could have worked. That's the context of the bill. Since then, the black rifle has become a de facto standard platform for hunting and sporting, the market has followed, also somehow a feral hog explosion, and so an outright ban would be very disruptive. My point is that bans aren't the only option, and, in 2020 (but not in the 1980s) the cost of a ban would outweigh the benefit.
I think reasonable people can have all sorts of opinions on what kind of regulations there should be around firearms, and my confidence in my own beliefs is not all that high. But I am fairly certain that thought-stopping appeals to the definitions in the FAWB (or, for that matter, to the Sturmgewehr) don't make good arguments, and can be quickly disposed of.
OK, I agree with you that such a proposal makes sense conceptually. (But I would still oppose it on the grounds that it offends the Second Amendment.) My complaint about conceptual incoherence is limited to bans that focus on things like pistol grips.
Yet that was not the definition used in the law.
The original FAWB (for rifles) itself defined an assault weapon as a semi-auto rifle with 2 of - folding or telescoping stock - pistol grip - bayonet mount - flash hider - grenade launcher.
This was such a ridiculous list, with about zero to do with lethality, that it was trivial to work around. No one was killing people with grenade launchers or bayonets, for example.
Targeting only detachable clips only leads to fast loaders like those used for 6-shooters, i.e., it's not much of a deterrent to quickly reloading weapons.
In practice and history, these bans seem more based on scary looking features than empirical lethality.
Here's a recent Assault Weapons Ban by Diane Feinstein, 2020, not the result of political lobbying.
It takes your statement to heart. Do you see any holes in this one being effective? I do.
>the result of intensive lobbying by groups like the NRA and represents a capitulation from the original position of gun reformers
Every bill will be the result of lobbying and ideas from competing groups, and will result in compromise. That's not such a bad thing. Not every American wants either extreme that political parties can concoct.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21021388