Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/3/2018 2:10:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/3/2018 2:12:02 PM EDT by DirtyHandsRob]
the NE Leg started again today and Sen Pansing-Brooks (and others) introduced LB870. she wants to outlaw binary triggers and suppressors.

link: https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=33953

big HELL NO to this!

ETA: LB730 - Ammo excise tax by Sen Wayne.

https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=33998
Link Posted: 1/3/2018 3:09:17 PM EDT
I have a rusty aids infected cactus they can sit on.
Link Posted: 1/3/2018 3:10:18 PM EDT
Any person who manufactures or causes to be manufactured,
27 imports or causes to be imported into this state, keeps for sale, offers
28 or exposes for sale, gives, lends, or possesses any multiburst trigger
29 activator or firearm silencer commits a Class IV felony.
View Quote
In for a penny, in for a pound
Link Posted: 1/4/2018 10:12:15 AM EDT
Already emailed my district senator. encouraging others to do the same. if we give them any hint that this could pass and have some merit they will see an opening and everything we have now will spiral down the toilet.
don't think that others will speak up and you don't need to. all it takes is an email to your district senator. DO IT!
Link Posted: 1/4/2018 4:45:18 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hodgi_:
Already emailed my district senator. encouraging others to do the same. if we give them any hint that this could pass and have some merit they will see an opening and everything we have now will spiral down the toilet.
don't think that others will speak up and you don't need to. all it takes is an email to your district senator. DO IT!
View Quote
don't forget that our Gov can veto the bill as well. i'll send him an email if this bill makes it out of committee.
Link Posted: 1/5/2018 8:45:56 AM EDT
yup, and I know he would never pass this. But I have a feeling that this is just a feeler, to see how far the Dems can get an anti bill thru. Then they will modify it and start pushing little pieces bit by bit.
Link Posted: 1/7/2018 11:57:45 PM EDT
Interesting tidbit I found. Ricket's wife was senator Wayne's second largest contributor to the tune of 10,000 right behind the state education association. The police local 101 also shelled out 2500...

https://ballotpedia.org/Justin_T._Wayne
Link Posted: 1/8/2018 3:44:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/8/2018 3:55:10 PM EDT by sdwornicki]
I read the text and it looks like it would ban SBRs, SBSs, and machineguns too. Maybe I’m wrong but read page 3 lines 23-25. Id quote it but I’m at work typing on the phone and it’s a pain. Wrote my rep and told him if it passes I’m gonna take my tax money and suppressor and go across the river to Iowa where I wouldn’t be a felon.

ETA:

(11) (9) Short rifle means a rifle having a barrel less than sixteen inches long or an overall length of less than twenty-six inches; and
(12) (10) Short shotgun means a shotgun having a barrel or barrels less than eighteen inches long or an overall length of less than twenty- six inches.
Sec. 2. Section 28-1203, Reissue Revised Statutes of Nebraska, is amended to read:
28-1203 (1) Any person or persons who transports shall transport or possesses possess any machine gun, short rifle, or short shotgun commits a Class IV felony.

https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/105/PDF/Intro/LB780.pdf
Link Posted: 1/8/2018 4:18:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/8/2018 4:19:30 PM EDT by Rick_NE]
Link Posted: 1/8/2018 4:20:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/8/2018 4:21:10 PM EDT by DirtyHandsRob]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sdwornicki:
I read the text and it looks like it would ban SBRs, SBSs, and machineguns too. Maybe I’m wrong but read page 3 lines 23-25. Id quote it but I’m at work typing on the phone and it’s a pain. Wrote my rep and told him if it passes I’m gonna take my tax money and suppressor and go across the river to Iowa where I wouldn’t be a felon.

ETA:

(11) (9) Short rifle means a rifle having a barrel less than sixteen inches long or an overall length of less than twenty-six inches; and
(12) (10) Short shotgun means a shotgun having a barrel or barrels less than eighteen inches long or an overall length of less than twenty- six inches.
Sec. 2. Section 28-1203, Reissue Revised Statutes of Nebraska, is amended to read:
28-1203 (1) Any person or persons who transports shall transport or possesses possess any machine gun, short rifle, or short shotgun commits a Class IV felony.

https://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/105/PDF/Intro/LB780.pdf
View Quote
the SBR/SBS/MG thing is already in statute. you have to read down a bit more where it says "or persons qualified under the provisions of federal law relating to the short rifle, short shotgun, or machine gun." ie - tax stamp.

ETA: beat by Rick. :(
Link Posted: 1/8/2018 4:35:50 PM EDT
Ahhh ok. My bad. At first read on the phone it looked like another backdoor “ban.”
Link Posted: 1/9/2018 2:07:52 AM EDT
Fight this BS, tooth and nail, want to come back to my home with all my goodies. WA is not sustainable, for a freedom lover.
Link Posted: 1/9/2018 10:07:13 AM EDT
very soon, LB81 by Sen Blood, which raises the Firearm Purchase Price to $25 is coming up very soon to the Leg floor. I would fight this one.
Link Posted: 1/9/2018 6:23:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/9/2018 6:24:11 PM EDT by Saladman]
You mean the Firearm Purchase Certificate that is specifically required to purchase handguns?
Link Posted: 1/9/2018 7:00:28 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Saladman:
You mean the Firearm Purchase Certificate that is specifically required to purchase handguns?
View Quote
Yes, it just needs to go away if it isn't paying for itself.
Link Posted: 1/9/2018 11:28:45 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/11/2018 9:45:03 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Nuke85:
Yes, it just needs to go away if it isn't paying for itself.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Nuke85:
Originally Posted By Saladman:
You mean the Firearm Purchase Certificate that is specifically required to purchase handguns?
Yes, it just needs to go away if it isn't paying for itself.
I can see merit for it. It's a very cheap way to get rid of the background check requirement. Having worked in a gun store it pisses me off whenever I see delay on a background check. I personally like the idea of not having background checks as they are blatantly unconstitutional, but it doesn't change the fact that this is a nice, legal, way to circumvent them, for $5.
Link Posted: 1/16/2018 11:56:58 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Saladman:
I can see merit for it. It's a very cheap way to get rid of the background check requirement. Having worked in a gun store it pisses me off whenever I see delay on a background check. I personally like the idea of not having background checks as they are blatantly unconstitutional, but it doesn't change the fact that this is a nice, legal, way to circumvent them, for $5.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Saladman:
Originally Posted By Nuke85:
Originally Posted By Saladman:
You mean the Firearm Purchase Certificate that is specifically required to purchase handguns?
Yes, it just needs to go away if it isn't paying for itself.
I can see merit for it. It's a very cheap way to get rid of the background check requirement. Having worked in a gun store it pisses me off whenever I see delay on a background check. I personally like the idea of not having background checks as they are blatantly unconstitutional, but it doesn't change the fact that this is a nice, legal, way to circumvent them, for $5.
For 5 bucks I agree. I just treated it like a convenience fee. However, once they start to raise the price who says they'll stop? Suddenly you need a 100 dollar permit to buy a pistol. Then the initial cost of the pistol, holster, extra magazines, ammo, and basic pistol training. Then you get to give the state another 100 for your permit after paying for the ccw class. The ccw also has the same benefits plus the ability to carry a firearm.

When I fist got my ccw I was making barely 8/ hour so my brand new XD and everything that goes with your first pistol was a significant amount of money and I had to work a large amount of OT to get something not hipoint grade(XD jokes aside). The point being the extra 95 bucks now probably wouldn't phase me too much but 8-9 years ago? At a minimum it would have delayed me.

I guess what I'm getting at is that anything that increases the difficulty or cost to exercise your rights should be fought even if it seems arbitrary at the moment. Now it happens to be a non issue but I imagine they are waiting for this stuff to be able to float under the radar. An even worse situation would be to ignore the skirmishes and laser focus on the big fight. Only way to win is totally overwhelm them at every turn. These bills aren't just going to all get sidelined every year.

And now I'm just ranting so I'll stop...
Link Posted: 1/17/2018 9:30:59 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/17/2018 10:07:22 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Rick_NE:
Rant on!! We need more people that have some passion getting involved in the fight!!
I'm hoping you're a NFOA member, I think they are wanting to get lots of people to Lincoln for the hearings of the various gun bills on the 25th of January in Judiciary committee Room 1113 - 1:30 PM

https://nebraskalegislature.gov/calendar/hearings_range.php?weekly
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Rick_NE:
Originally Posted By Nuke85:

For 5 bucks I agree. I just treated it like a convenience fee. However, once they start to raise the price who says they'll stop? Suddenly you need a 100 dollar permit to buy a pistol. Then the initial cost of the pistol, holster, extra magazines, ammo, and basic pistol training. Then you get to give the state another 100 for your permit after paying for the ccw class. The ccw also has the same benefits plus the ability to carry a firearm.

When I fist got my ccw I was making barely 8/ hour so my brand new XD and everything that goes with your first pistol was a significant amount of money and I had to work a large amount of OT to get something not hipoint grade(XD jokes aside). The point being the extra 95 bucks now probably wouldn't phase me too much but 8-9 years ago? At a minimum it would have delayed me.

I guess what I'm getting at is that anything that increases the difficulty or cost to exercise your rights should be fought even if it seems arbitrary at the moment. Now it happens to be a non issue but I imagine they are waiting for this stuff to be able to float under the radar. An even worse situation would be to ignore the skirmishes and laser focus on the big fight. Only way to win is totally overwhelm them at every turn. These bills aren't just going to all get sidelined every year.

And now I'm just ranting so I'll stop...
Rant on!! We need more people that have some passion getting involved in the fight!!
I'm hoping you're a NFOA member, I think they are wanting to get lots of people to Lincoln for the hearings of the various gun bills on the 25th of January in Judiciary committee Room 1113 - 1:30 PM

https://nebraskalegislature.gov/calendar/hearings_range.php?weekly
yes, that is the kind of testimony we need to fight the bill.

and for the bumpfire/suppressor bill, we need to point out how much money is made off of sales tax info.
Link Posted: 1/17/2018 9:25:59 PM EDT
Suppressors are already super regulated. The absurdity of the bumpfire ban is with a few minutes and a belt I'm bumping from the hip, a few more and I'm doing it without anything special. It's a gateway, every bumpfire ban I've read is a road to ban semi auto firearms or a way to limit rate of fire through magazine capacity or a manual reload like California.
Link Posted: 1/25/2018 10:08:16 AM EDT
today is the day! the bumpstock and suppressor bill is due for testimony in the Judiciary Committee today at 130pm CT. let the committee members know your feelings! they need to hear from you!

however, looks like the Ammo Excise Tax bill is dead for this year. Sen Wayne will not push it this year.

also, since Sen Chambers prairie dog bill was killed, he's all pissed and cranky. he's dragging stuff down. he threatening pretty much every bill. in his time at the mic, he showed all the faxes that he received from the "gun nuts." it was at least a ream or two of paper.

never a dull moment.
Link Posted: 1/25/2018 3:22:18 PM EDT
do they televise this sort of thing? if so where could I find it online? I'm interested in listening to what ppl have to say while I'm at work
Link Posted: 1/25/2018 3:51:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/25/2018 3:59:50 PM EDT by Hodgi_]
found the link via quick google search.

sounds like the suppressor language has been removed. just focusing on bump stocks and trigger mechanisims

ETA: NRA lobbyist is speaking in opposition of the bill! and straight up said "we do not support bump stock bans"
Link Posted: 1/25/2018 11:26:46 PM EDT
Any more info on how this went today? I wasn't able to get the day off. Only sent an email.. Chambers ranting with stacks of paper makes me laugh. I'm also glad the NRA said they don't support the ban.
Link Posted: 1/26/2018 8:46:56 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Nuke85:
Any more info on how this went today? I wasn't able to get the day off. Only sent an email.. Chambers ranting with stacks of paper makes me laugh. I'm also glad the NRA said they don't support the ban.
View Quote
There was only 2 proponents for the bill that spoke at the hearing. Nebraskans for Peace, and Nebraska against gun violence iirc.

I lost count on opponents, but there was probably more than 6 who spoke. All of which made good valid points, except one guy who I did not agree with. Cant remember his name but flouted his PRS status and claimed the current bill was not specific enough and his aftermarket triggers in his PRS could be in violation, and how the bill needs to ban rate of fire instead of accessories like triggers, and bump stocks. Chambers seemed to like what this guy was saying, and to me, basically said he was going to ignore everyone else b/c this is the only guy who knew what he was talking about.

Other speakers against the bill stated how they use bump stocks for testing purposes of metallurgy, testing, etc. for their jobs and committee members were interested in a "research" clause. Those testifying said no to a research clause.

Chambers rattled on about stupid shit. I think at one point he said something about John Wayne running around with machine guns...idk when he talks my brain melts.

Some things I would have liked to see was an explanation between what makes a semi auto different than FA rifle, and how a bump fire stock only assists an individual on reaching a rate of fire that the semi auto is already capable of reaching, with or without a bump stock. More in depth explanation, on bump firing being a technique not an accessory. I don't think the committee members understood the references to using rubber bands and belt loops to achieve the same effect as bump fire.
Link Posted: 1/26/2018 11:26:29 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hodgi_:
There was only 2 proponents for the bill that spoke at the hearing. Nebraskans for Peace, and Nebraska against gun violence iirc.

I lost count on opponents, but there was probably more than 6 who spoke. All of which made good valid points, except one guy who I did not agree with. Cant remember his name but flouted his PRS status and claimed the current bill was not specific enough and his aftermarket triggers in his PRS could be in violation, and how the bill needs to ban rate of fire instead of accessories like triggers, and bump stocks. Chambers seemed to like what this guy was saying, and to me, basically said he was going to ignore everyone else b/c this is the only guy who knew what he was talking about.

Other speakers against the bill stated how they use bump stocks for testing purposes of metallurgy, testing, etc. for their jobs and committee members were interested in a "research" clause. Those testifying said no to a research clause.

Chambers rattled on about stupid shit. I think at one point he said something about John Wayne running around with machine guns...idk when he talks my brain melts.

Some things I would have liked to see was an explanation between what makes a semi auto different than FA rifle, and how a bump fire stock only assists an individual on reaching a rate of fire that the semi auto is already capable of reaching, with or without a bump stock. More in depth explanation, on bump firing being a technique not an accessory. I don't think the committee members understood the references to using rubber bands and belt loops to achieve the same effect as bump fire.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hodgi_:
Originally Posted By Nuke85:
Any more info on how this went today? I wasn't able to get the day off. Only sent an email.. Chambers ranting with stacks of paper makes me laugh. I'm also glad the NRA said they don't support the ban.
There was only 2 proponents for the bill that spoke at the hearing. Nebraskans for Peace, and Nebraska against gun violence iirc.

I lost count on opponents, but there was probably more than 6 who spoke. All of which made good valid points, except one guy who I did not agree with. Cant remember his name but flouted his PRS status and claimed the current bill was not specific enough and his aftermarket triggers in his PRS could be in violation, and how the bill needs to ban rate of fire instead of accessories like triggers, and bump stocks. Chambers seemed to like what this guy was saying, and to me, basically said he was going to ignore everyone else b/c this is the only guy who knew what he was talking about.

Other speakers against the bill stated how they use bump stocks for testing purposes of metallurgy, testing, etc. for their jobs and committee members were interested in a "research" clause. Those testifying said no to a research clause.

Chambers rattled on about stupid shit. I think at one point he said something about John Wayne running around with machine guns...idk when he talks my brain melts.

Some things I would have liked to see was an explanation between what makes a semi auto different than FA rifle, and how a bump fire stock only assists an individual on reaching a rate of fire that the semi auto is already capable of reaching, with or without a bump stock. More in depth explanation, on bump firing being a technique not an accessory. I don't think the committee members understood the references to using rubber bands and belt loops to achieve the same effect as bump fire.
very good synopsis.

a couple more things...

about the MG thing. Sen Chambers thinks no one can own an MG in NE. a testifier corrected him about the NFA tax. i would have stayed quiet. if he researches it more, you might see a bill about outlawing MG's next year.

the one guys seemed more like a "I support the 2nd Amend, but...." i was not a fan of his testimony, but he did testify.

in her closing Sen Pansing-Brooks mentioned something about we are not after your guns, we just don't like this accessory. we are going after this accessory. well, guess what... a stripped lower is a firearm, everything else connected to it is an accessory. so screw that slippery slope bullshit.

in case someone missed it, there is an amendment that would take out suppressors from the bill, so thats good. but the bill still sucks.
Link Posted: 1/26/2018 1:15:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/26/2018 1:18:00 PM EDT by Dogchaser]
Pretty easy to tell when Chambers was baiting opponents. He did it continually though out the hearing., I wished they'd put a time limit on how long a Sen can bloviate without dealing with the subject at hand. The competitive shooter didn't help us, and agreed he gave the only testimony Ernie would listen to. PPB took cans out of the bill in her opening statement, I'm sure to get everyone to back down but the bill still stinks.
Link Posted: 2/11/2018 7:46:32 PM EDT
I need to come into this forum more often. This is the first that I've heard about this. What's the latest?
Link Posted: 2/11/2018 8:28:59 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By GlowInTheDark:
I need to come into this forum more often. This is the first that I've heard about this. What's the latest?
View Quote
Better than this forum is the Nebraska Firearms Owners Association (NFOA) own forum. Link can be found at the top of this subforum or Google.

Anyways, no news as far as I know. I know Pansing-Brooks said she'd submit an amendment to eliminate the suppressor language. I think bumpfire stocks were the target the whole time. I know there were few supporters, but lots of opposition. Doubt it goes anywhere. This year is a budget year and Chambers is pissed over lots of things.... Prairie dogs, Mt lions, sexual assault, Trump, NE Supreme Court judge, white people, etc.
Link Posted: 2/19/2018 7:20:49 PM EDT
In somewhat related news.,.. Lincoln's city council is looking at banning bumpfire stocks.

Another reason for passing LB68, State Preemption.
Link Posted: 2/28/2018 9:14:39 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/3/2018 10:34:34 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Rick_NE:

Pretty sure we won't see LB68 on the agenda anytime soon.
View Quote
Unfortunately that is most likely correct.
Link Posted: 3/9/2018 3:53:50 PM EDT
How's this standing now that FL and other states have been pushing new laws hardcore?
Link Posted: 3/9/2018 5:36:52 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hodgi_:
How's this standing now that FL and other states have been pushing new laws hardcore?
View Quote
Haven't heard anything, however, Lincoln's city council is proposing a bump stock ban. Public hearing will be next week. The NFOA is looking at testifying against it.
Link Posted: 3/9/2018 11:24:48 PM EDT
So what can the city council do? Just ban them in the city of Lincoln? Any way to put it up to a vote or email anyone to let them know as a Lincolnite i dont agree?
Link Posted: 3/10/2018 7:35:19 PM EDT
Yeah, they can outlaw them inside city limits. But that would all go away if LB68 wod ever get passed. There will be a hearing on it. I urge you to go and speak against it. That's much better than an email or letter. Not sure when it is, but check 10/11s website for the story. If you more help, I'll ask the NFOA is they have any pointers.
Link Posted: 3/11/2018 3:58:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/11/2018 4:24:55 PM EDT by Dogchaser]
I believe it's on the Council's agenda for the 3-12 meeting. Not sure of time. Ordinance 18-35 down the page a ways.
http://www.lincoln.ne.gov/city/council/agenda/2018/031218/a031218.htm
Link Posted: 3/12/2018 9:26:32 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Dogchaser:
I believe it's on the Council's agenda for the 3-12 meeting. Not sure of time. Ordinance 18-35 down the page a ways.
http://www.lincoln.ne.gov/city/council/agenda/2018/031218/a031218.htm
View Quote
wow! tonight? damn! thats quick! you know Tom Cassidy and other anti's from UNL will be there.
Top Top