Started By
Message

Republican-Sponsored Anti-Gun Bill - Take Action!

Posted on 10/12/17 at 6:40 pm
Posted by bapple
Capital City
Member since Oct 2010
11875 posts
Posted on 10/12/17 at 6:40 pm
Bill HR3999

A bill has been introduced by Carlos Curbelo and is sponsored by other republicans (I will list all contact info in at the bottom of this message as I gather it). You can also assume that it will be sponsored by the majority of democrats as well since they will likely follow party lines.

I'll detail the bill myself but I'll link a few videos from some prominent gun YouTubers that do a good job demonstrating the dangerous precedent with this bill.

Take Action - NRA/ILA Email Reps

Military Arms Channel - Republican Turncoats Introduce Anti-Gun Bill!

Mr Guns and Gear - House Bill Introduced To Ban Devices That Increase Rate of Fire!

VSO Gun Channel - Republicans Sponsor Worst Gun Control Bill Ever

The bill is intended to ban "rate increasing devices." I can almost assure you that this bill will be shown to the public to only ban bump fire stocks. What is the problem with this?

1. What is considered the standard rate of fire of semi automatic rifles? It is not specified anywhere in this bill, hence, it is open to interpretation.

2. What is considered a "rate increasing device"? It is not specified in this bill, hence, it is also open to interpretation.

3. The bill outright bans these "rate increasing devices" and has a penalty of 5 years in prison if found in possession of one of these devices, hence, you could become a felon overnight. And again, what does it include? They never really tell you so it is open to interpretation.

Here is why this bill is dangerous:

1. "Bump sticks" and "bump firing" weapons is nothing new. It's essentially something that can be done with a belt loop and your finger. The politicians will try to tell you this bill is only intended to ban bump fire stocks but it does not specifically state that in the bill. Could this also mean if you bump fire a completely standard rifle that the gun can be assumed to have a bumpfire stock? I wish I could answer that question and I doubt they could either.

2. This essentially means that anyone who owns a semi automatic rifle must fall within arbitrary guidelines that are laid out in the bill. What are these guidelines exactly? Specifics are never mentioned so there is no way to tell and the openness to interpretation continues.

3. This bill could also include the simple addition of an aftermarket trigger. If you own an AR15 with a Geissele or Rock River trigger, your rifle could fall within these arbitrary limits that they never specify. Standard weights of triggers or standard lengths of pull for rifle triggers can arbitrarily be chosen and set to specific limits.

4. If this bill were to pass the BATFE or ATF could interpret the laws as they see fit, despite not being made up of elected officials. Basically some government workers get to put your fate in their hands - are you a criminal or not? I wish I had the answer.

5. This bill essentially outlaws semi automatic rifles since they do not go into specifics ever. They could attempt to outlaw your trigger finger or even Jerry Miculek since those are "rate increasing devices." This is a big problem.

6. Dianne Feinstein direct quote - "I am not sure there are any set of laws that could have prevented [Vegas]." Make no mistake - they want an outright ban and this is the first step to do it. This is the same woman who is shown on video saying she wishes she could ban guns outright and tell "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in!" This could be the first step for politicians to try and put AR15s in the ATF registry.

7. If they pushed for AR15s to be regulated by the ATF, what effect would that have? If a murderer with a squeaky clean record uses a registered gun to kill innocents, does it really matter if the gun is registered or not? Again, make no mistake - gun registration fully ensures future confiscation. It could be tomorrow, next year, or next decade but that is the ultimate goal.

I will continue to update this thread with information to contact these politicians. I also would advise you contact the representatives in LA since we don't know if our reps would follow party lines or listen to their electorate.

Take action and prevent this from passing!
This post was edited on 10/12/17 at 6:43 pm
Posted by bapple
Capital City
Member since Oct 2010
11875 posts
Posted on 10/12/17 at 6:44 pm to
Contact Info:

Carlos Curbelo (FL): Contact CC

Miami office - (305)222-0160

Peter King (NY): Contact PK

pete.king@mail.house.gov

Massapequa Park, NY number: (516)541-4225

Leonard Lance (NJ): Contact LL

Flemington District Office: (908)788-6900

Patrick Meehan (PA): Contact PM

Springfield, PA office: (610)690-7323

Ed Royce (CA): Contact ER


Brea, CA office: (714)255-0101 | (909) 420-0010

Chris Smith (NJ): Contact CS

Freehold, NJ office: (732)780-3035

Erik Paulsen (MN): Contact EP

Eden Prairie, MN office: (952)405-8510

Ryan Costello (PA): Contact RC

West Chester, PA office: (610)696-2982

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL): Contact IRL

Miami, Fl office: (305)668-2285

Charlie Dent (PA): Contact CD

Allentown, PA office: (610)770-3490
This post was edited on 10/12/17 at 7:17 pm
Posted by LSUEnvy
Hou via Lake Chas
Member since May 2011
12087 posts
Posted on 10/12/17 at 7:11 pm to
Noted. I will do some research here in Tx
Posted by Geauxtiga
No man's land
Member since Jan 2008
34377 posts
Posted on 10/12/17 at 7:33 pm to
Trump will veto it
Posted by ChatRabbit77
Baton Rouge
Member since May 2013
5857 posts
Posted on 10/12/17 at 7:41 pm to
quote:

Trump will veto it

I don't care what Trump will or will not do. This is still an issue.
Posted by bapple
Capital City
Member since Oct 2010
11875 posts
Posted on 10/12/17 at 7:43 pm to
Trump essentially used exposure at the NRA for votes and hasn't commented on gun rights much since getting elected.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy he's there instead of Hillary but I don't fully trust him. Gotta work the state level first.
Posted by ChatRabbit77
Baton Rouge
Member since May 2013
5857 posts
Posted on 10/12/17 at 7:49 pm to
quote:

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy he's there instead of Hillary but I don't fully trust him.

This. Who knows, may someone who supports gun stuff including repealing the NFA can go golfing with him since that seems to be his priority.
Posted by Geauxtiga
No man's land
Member since Jan 2008
34377 posts
Posted on 10/12/17 at 8:10 pm to
quote:


Don't get me wrong, I'm happy he's there instead of Hillary but I don't fully trust him. Gotta work the state level first.
Yeah I agree. Better to not take a chance and kill it before.
Posted by biggsc
32.4767389, 35.5697717
Member since Mar 2009
34209 posts
Posted on 10/12/17 at 8:18 pm to
#VoteOutTheEstablishment #TakeAction
This post was edited on 10/12/17 at 9:31 pm
Posted by Ron Cheramie
The Cajun Hedgehog
Member since Aug 2016
5133 posts
Posted on 10/12/17 at 8:23 pm to
This looks like something my paranoid grandpa will send me in a chain email
Posted by bapple
Capital City
Member since Oct 2010
11875 posts
Posted on 10/12/17 at 8:44 pm to
If it's so paranoid and easy to discredit then why don't you do it? Dispute my claims instead of throwing out bullshite insults. Tell me where I am wrong.
Posted by texag7
College Station
Member since Apr 2014
37472 posts
Posted on 10/12/17 at 9:02 pm to
Tim from military arms has been on top of this stuff lately. His Instagram is a good follow
Posted by Big L
Houston
Member since Sep 2005
5406 posts
Posted on 10/12/17 at 9:29 pm to
Just out of curiosity, if there was a way to word a bill properly to restrict bump stocks, would you be in favor of it or opposed to it? I realize you can bump fire a gun without one, but my understanding is that it's a lot easier with a bump stock, but I've never used one so I'm not sure.
Posted by ChatRabbit77
Baton Rouge
Member since May 2013
5857 posts
Posted on 10/12/17 at 9:35 pm to
quote:

, if there was a way to word a bill properly to restrict bump stocks, would you be in favor of it or opposed to it?

Not the guy you asked but I am opposed to any restriction on the right to bear arms. That includes anything on the NFA.
Posted by RebelExpress38
In your base, killin your dudes
Member since Apr 2012
13503 posts
Posted on 10/12/17 at 9:41 pm to
Emailed my rep and senators thanks for all the links. Others, please do the same, that NRA link has an option to type an email and it automatically emails it to all your federal reps.
Posted by bapple
Capital City
Member since Oct 2010
11875 posts
Posted on 10/12/17 at 9:41 pm to
Would I personally support banning bump stocks? No because I think it would have a domino effect, similar to this bill. It seems the flavor of the day is devices that "increase rate of fire." Plus banning them wouldn't affect crime rates at all really since this is the first crime ever committed with one on record. It would be purely symbolic and not statistical in any way.

Do I think if this bill only covered bump stocks that it would have a much greater chance of passing? Without a doubt. I think they were dumb to not focus on the bump stocks only honestly. Would've been easy for them to just jump to the next thing after a small victory.
Posted by Big L
Houston
Member since Sep 2005
5406 posts
Posted on 10/12/17 at 11:12 pm to
quote:

Not the guy you asked but I am opposed to any restriction on the right to bear arms. That includes anything on the NFA.


So here's my conundrum...at the time the constitution was written, muskets and cannons were the furthest advancements in small arms weaponry. I think the sentiment was that citizens should be able to defend themselves from a tyrannical government, and I agree. But to what level of technological innovation does that right extend? Should any form really be restricted? How do u determine where to draw the line? Serious question as I'm not sure how I feel about it...definitely see both sides. The idea of living like the North Koreans is frightening, but the absence of govt control/restriction over weapons of mass destruction is equally frightening.
Posted by Propagandalf
Baton Rouge
Member since May 2010
2528 posts
Posted on 10/13/17 at 12:41 am to
quote:

So here's my conundrum...at the time the constitution was written, muskets and cannons were the furthest advancements in small arms weaponry.


This argument is the most asinine one the gun grabbers use. By that logic your 1st amendment rights would not extend to TV and radio because the founders didn't know that tech would come about. The bill of rights was drafted because the people did not feel like the constitution was clear enough regarding certain aspects like freedom of speech, right to bear arms, freedom of religion, etc. Dont discount the fact the second thing listed was right to bear arms, magnifying its importance to the people at that time. These people having just fought for their freedom knew how important the right to arms was against a tyrannical government. They were able to win because of those arms. It doesn't matter what the tech was at the time, so long as it was apples to apples. Had we had AR15s/M4s back then we wouldve won a lot quicker, and they wouldve been covered by 2A. The right to bear arms is a lot about the people being able to keep the government in check. Its easy to laugh this off or claim paranoia, but the reality is it's far from out of the realm of possibility. Open a history book or Google Werner Best or 1930s Germany. Aside from that important aspect, 2A is essential in order to defend yourself, family and those innocent who may be around you. This one literally happens all the time, search self defense shooting on YouTube for a small sample of the ones caught on tape.

ETA: These people lived during the Age of Enlightenment. Just as you and I realize that in 100 years computers will be faster, cars will drive themselves and technology will continue to progress. The capable thinkers who ratified the Bill of Rights knew technology would progress as they had witnessesed the progression from sticks to muskets, and surely knew that's not where it ended. That's probably why they said right to bear arms...and not right to bear muskets.

ETAA: Above point is even more reason to oppose restriction so that as tech progresses (caseless ammo, not that far off, or fricking laser beams, probably a little ways out ) isn't prohibited for us and generations in the future aren't left with only the "muskets" of today.
This post was edited on 10/13/17 at 9:49 am
Posted by Propagandalf
Baton Rouge
Member since May 2010
2528 posts
Posted on 10/13/17 at 1:17 am to
quote:

What is considered the standard rate of fire of semi automatic rifles? It is not specified anywhere in this bill, hence, it is open to interpretation.


While this is certainly a problem. I think that without listing an exact ROF, the court, under strict scrutiny, would have to hold ROF would be set as t the factory configuration and
delta ROF would be anything that increases that including aftermarket triggers. So while Geissele wouldn't go out of business you may see lot more "factory" upgrades as a work around...including coming with a slide fire stock. While this is a meantime work around it still does not secure our rights or the people's in the future.
This post was edited on 10/13/17 at 1:23 am
Posted by Big L
Houston
Member since Sep 2005
5406 posts
Posted on 10/13/17 at 8:42 am to
I'm pro gun, but I do think the line should be drawn somewhere. I just don't know where you draw the line or what logic you use to define it. I personally don't see a big difference between fully auto and semi auto. Aside from spraying into crowds and committting mass murder indiscriminately, fully auto isn't very effective for small arms combat, yet they are heavily restricted (not banned) and people generally think they should not be available for general ownership. So should we be allowed to have full auto?
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 5Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram