Les,
I think the answer is cunning malice. I think legislators learned from the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban and use language that eliminates prior workarounds like thumb hole stocks and have tried to use language that is both vague enough and specific enough that, as I read it, eliminates any semi-auto rifle. For example at least one poster has opined bull pup rifles would be spared but as I interpret the law and interpret the action of a bull pup rifle the bull pup rifle would still be banned based upon the action irregardless of whether or not it has a detachable magazine and irregardless of magazine capacity.

Looking again at the proposal as written (quoted below):
1. "Any grip". There are no exceptions. This is all inclusive.
2. "Any finger on the trigger hand ...... being directly below any portion of the action." This wording eliminates all conventional long guns. I can rationalize that the trigger of a bull pup, although not directly below the action as I define the action (i.e. receiver), is connected via a mechanism under the action to the action and thus part of the action and by the wording of this proposal would therefor be "below any portion of the action" and thus banned under this wording.

Based upon the wording of the proposal with the one key work of "under" an optimist would counter that you could design a gun with the trigger mechanism above the receiver or offset from the receiver but I cannot imagine that going over very well or being very ergonomic. And the blindly optimist would counter you could just shoot your weapon upside down.

From the proposal: "Any grip of the weapon, including any a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock or any other stock, the use of which would allow an individual to grip the weapon, resulting in any finger on the trigger hand in addition to the trigger finger being directly below any portion of the action of the weapon when firing;"

__________________
Scoundrel & Ne'er-Do-Well