Jump to content
TedderVision
Jsawrie

Bump Stock Regulation Act

Recommended Posts

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the manufacture, possession, or transfer of any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Knox for himself and others with thanks to Mr. Curbelo of Florida (for himself, Mr. Moulton, Mr. King of New York, Mr. Polis, Mr. Lance, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, Mr. Meehan, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Royce of California, Mr. O'Rourke, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Paulsen, Ms. Gabbard, Mr. Costello of Pennsylvania, Mr. Kihuen, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Delaney, Mr. Dent, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Ms. Stefanik, and Mr. Perlmutter) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the manufacture, possession, or transfer of any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON MANUFACTURE, POSSESSION, OR TRANSFER OF ANY PART OR COMBINATION OF PARTS THAT IS DESIGNED AND FUNCTIONS TO INCREASE THE RATE OF FIRE OF A SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE BUT DOES NOT CONVERT THE SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLE INTO A MACHINEGUN.

(a) Prohibition.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person—

“(1) in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, to manufacture, possess, or transfer any part or combination of parts that is designed and functions to increase the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but does not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun; or

“(2) to manufacture, possess, or transfer any such part or combination of parts that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”.

(b) Penalties.—Section 924(a)(1)(B) of such title is amended by striking “or (q)” and inserting “(q), or (aa)”.

(c) Sentencing Guidelines.—Pursuant to its authority under section 994 of title 28, United States Code, and in accordance with this subsection, the United States Sentencing Commission shall amend and review the Federal sentencing guidelines and policy statements to ensure that the guidelines provide for a penalty enhancement of not less than 2 offense levels for a violation of section 922(aa) of title 18 of such Code if the device described in such section 922(aa) has been—

(1) used, carried, or possessed during or in relation to a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (as such terms are defined in section 924(c)(3) of such title 18); or

(2) smuggled unlawfully into or from the United States.

(d) Effective Date.—This section and the amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to conduct engaged in after the 90-day period that begins with the date of the enactment of this Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PLAYER NAME
Republicans Democrats
NAT EV BUS MR ML SJW PRO GLO
Change -3 -3 5- -3 -2 +3 +3 +5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker, 

 

I rise today in support of this much needed  legislation and I second the motion for unanimous consent. 

 

I yield 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dogslife said:

Mr. Speaker,

I move for unanimous consent

I yield

 

1 hour ago, Chris said:

Mr. Speaker, 

 

I rise today in support of this much needed  legislation and I second the motion for unanimous consent. 

 

I yield 

Motion recognized for 24 hours

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

I would like to ask the gentleman why he would object to a bill that could possibly save lives. Why would you object to making it so rifles cannot fire multiple rounds per second?

I yield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

Could possibly is a vague basis for enacting gun control legislation that isn't backed up by any statisical evidence. It presupposes legitimacy of argument that hasn't been earned and just paints any opposition as wanting to harm people. Gun control legislation doesn't make people safer and I don't support any gun control measures. That is why I have objected.

I yield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dogslife said:

Mr. Speaker,

I would like to ask the gentleman why he would object to a bill that could possibly save lives. Why would you object to making it so rifles cannot fire multiple rounds per second?

I yield

I want to remind the gentleman from Colorado that first person language not directed to the chair isn’t allowed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Speaker,

My apologies to the gentleman. But are we supposed to wait until some sort of mass shooting happens with a bump stock? That reasoning is not sound what so ever. We have a chance right here today to help save lives. Just because the gentleman doesn’t think the possibility is high doesn’t mean we still shouldn’t pass this legislation.

I yield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

We shouldn't be passing legislation based on baseless fear mongering. There is no epidemic of bump stocks being used in mass shootings. More people are being killed by baseball bats, knives, and bare hands than by bump stocks.

I yield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

I think it is quite telling that the best defense the gentleman from New York has of his opposition is that bump stocks haven't led to the killing of many yet.

This is not a defense of bump stocks themselves, but just a proclamation of luck.

We as a society have deemed automatic weapons that fire multiple rounds in seconds too dangerous for the public, and as such we should deem modifications that allow semi-automatic weapons to perform in the same fashion as automatic ones too dangerous for the public. It is logical and ethical, and it will make our country safer. 

I yield.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

This is a common sense bill that even Republicans in my home state of Illinois have signaled support for.  

I would remind my Republican colleagues that only a small portion of the electorate opposes this inoffensive measure to help prevent gun violence in this country.  I support this bill.  It is the right thing to do.  I support gun rights, but I also believe that common sense measures such as this will help the curb this epidemic that is plaguing our country.  

I yield.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

Could the gentleman from Illinois explain how bump stocks are an epidemic? They haven't been of any significant negative impact from them and nobody has pointed out beyond fear mongering why now all of a sudden it's going to become the weapon of choose for mass shooters when it hasn't been.

I yield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

I'm referring to the gun violence epidemic that is plaguing our neighborhoods, our schools, our churches, and our shopping malls.  If anyone wishes to be indignant, sarcastic, or otherwise distort my comments on this issue, then maybe they should reconsider their priorities.  

My number one priority is keeping our citizens safe.  And this bill will help, regardless of Republican fear mongering.  

These supposed law and order conservatives are surprisingly weak on keeping children, law enforcement, and clergymen safe from mass shootings.  

I yield.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

Gun violence according to Pew Research has been on decline for decades we're not in any sort of gun violence epidemic like the gentleman from Illinois is suggesting. Is anybody going to cite some numbers on bump stocks to support why this is needed or are we going to have to cite mass shootings that haven't happened but Democrats keep saying will suddenly happen for some unknown reason that they won't explain?

I yield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×