It seems intuitive to me that when you're in public you want to make it clear what you are supporting but you also want to look as sane, courteous, safe and nonthreatening as possible. The goal with all of this is to sway the undecideds, right? Who are they? If we can give comfortable feelings to the suburban mom who dreads school shootings then we've probably won the battle. I can't see body armor sending the right message.
Regarding the TS12, I don't believe it would be an "assault shotgun" under the "revolving cylinder" clause. That clause was intended to ban "revolver shotguns" like the
Striker 12, with the cylinder being the component where the shell is fired from. Under SB3196, the TS12 would be banned because it has a "fixed magazine with the capacity to hold more than five rounds", with "fixed magazine" being defined as "an ammunition feeding device that is permanently attached to a firearm, or contained in and not removable from a firearm".
California has the "
revolving cylinder" clause but doesn't ban the TS12 because it
clarifies:
"
Shotgun with a revolving cylinder" means a shotgun that holds its ammunition in a cylinder that acts as a chamber much like a revolver. To meet this definition the shotgun's cylinder must mechanically revolve or rotate each time the weapon is fired. A cylinder that must be manually rotated by the shooter does not qualify as a revolving cylinder."
I do appreciate the extremely esoteric list of firearms that made it into this bill. The TS12 didn't make it onto their copy-and-paste simply because it was released in 2018. It is also probably worth mentioning that SB3196 goes further than even California in a lot of ways.