LB 780

[depserv]

Looks like our old friend Passing Gas is up to her old tricks.  This link provides an easy way to contact the appropriate legislators.  They provide a form letter, and make is easy to edit so it reflects your own words, which I believe should make it more effective. 

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180123/nebraska-suppressor-ban-to-be-heard-on-thursday

[hilowe]

Thanks for the heads up on this.  I missed the email from them (probably deleted it because I saw NRA and assumed it was them asking for more money).

I edited the response to include that Iowa changed their laws in 2016 to legalize ownership of suppressors and that there have been no crimes committed with a suppressed firearm since them.

[Lorimor]

My letter to Senator Ebke. I was reasonably nice.  Honestly, I'm tired of the Unicam's antics and it kind of shows.

Dear Senator Ebke,

I am writing to express my opposition to LB780.  Frankly, I consider it an exercise in futility as it is a waste of time and tax payer dollars as I will explain below.  If the Unicam REALLY wants to fight crime, then the logical course of action is to punish ACTUAL criminals rather than attempt to make criminals out of previously law-abiding citizens.

1) Banning suppressors.  What's the point?  For less than $20, I can buy a car oil filter and a readily available small metal threaded adapter and have an effective suppressor be it for a handgun or a high powered rifle.  If you don't believe me, there are multiple youtube videos that demonstrate the effectiveness and availability of this item.  The adapter itself could, and would, be legal if the buyer pays the $200 tax stamp and registers it.  But hey, if someone is bent on murder and mayhem, why on earth are they going to care about such laws?  Google "solvent traps" to learn more about these adapters and how easy they are to obtain.  Why would in anyone in their right mind think they can actually regulate suppressors when effective and incredibly inexpensive alternative devices are readily available?

2) "Bump fire" stocks. LB780 attempts to ban an activity by banning a device.  Again, I will refer you to youtube where multiple videos can be found demonstrating how to bump fire virtually any semi-auto firearm simply by hooking one's thumb through the trigger guard of the firearm and then through the belt loop on their pants.  It's stupid easy to do.  Again, this ban is a massive waste of time and tax payer dollars.

I want less crime.  You want less crime.  I'm going to assume Senator Brooks wants less crime.  I honestly believe this bill is terribly ill-conceived and in no way can be considered an effective means of controlling crime in Nebraska or anywhere else for that matter.  It is simply the wrong approach.

If Senator Brooks or any other Senator in the Unicam REALLY wants to fight crime, get tough on ACTUAL criminals.  Punish them harshly.  ENFORCE the law!!!!

We had an incident in Columbus about 10 years or so ago where a convicted felon, illegally in possession of a firearm, held up the Burger King.  Fortunately, no one was harmed.  Unfortunately, the firearms charges, which according to Nebraska law from what I understand, which would have made all sentences for all the charges he was convicted of to be served consecutively, were plea bargained away.  The firearms charges were plea bargained away!!!  And we want more firearms laws???  What's the point of laws if we don't enforce them? I see firearms charges plea bargained away on a regular basis.

We're not enforcing current law.  We're not tough on the actual bad guys,  We don't have the time nor the fortitude to punish the bad guys, but apparently we have the time and gumption to punish the average law-abiding Nebraskan by denying them material items.

The Unicam and Senator Brooks really want to punish Nebraskans who have done nothing wrong and probably will never commit a serious crime??

Kindest regards,

Me
Platte Center NE

[Mudinyeri]

Here's what I sent to Sen. Ebke:

Dear Senator Ebke:

I am writing to express my concerns about LB780. It is my understanding the Judiciary Committee hearing is scheduled this coming Thursday, January 25th at 1:30 p.m. Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend and testify against this legislation due to a prior commitment.

Since I will be unable to attend, I wanted to pass along a few thoughts primarily related to suppressors (the correct term, as suppressors do not silence a firearm any more than a muffler silences a car):

1. A suppressor does not silence a gunshot. Only in the movies and on television will a “silencer” reduce the sound of a firearm to a nice, quiet pffft.
2. Suppressors do reduce the sound of a firearm's muzzle blast by about 20-30 decibels. A typical gunshot is 150-160 decibels. This means that the sound of a suppressed firearm is still as loud as a sports crowd, rock concert or a stock car race.
3. A suppressor does NOT reduce the "crack" of a bullet traveling at supersonic speeds.
4. Suppressors do not eliminate muzzle flash. They may reduce it slightly but the flash is still visible.
5. Suppressors are designed to reduce sound for the shooter, not for a target. They are a hearing safety device and nothing more.
6. Based on the information above, one can easily see that Hillary Clinton's suggestion that a "silencer" would have worsened the Las Vegas shooting is patently false and a clear demonstration of firearms (and suppressor) ignorance.
7. The ATF estimates that there are approximately 1.3 million suppressors registered in the U.S. Their figures show that approximately 10,000 are registered in the state of Nebraska.
8. ATF Associate Deputy Director, Ronald Turk, once argued that suppressors should be deregulated due to the low rate at which they are used in crimes. (Fewer than .003% of suppressors are used in crimes on an annual basis.) Turk wrote, "Given the lack of criminality associated with silencers, it is reasonable to conclude that they should not be viewed as a threat to public safety necessitating [National Firearms Act] classification, and should be considered for reclassification under the [Gun Control Act]."
9. Between 1995 and 2005, a study by Paul Clark published in the Western Criminology Review, found only two federal court cases involving the use of a suppressor in a murder.
10. No record of a suppressor being used in a mass shooting can be found.
11. Given the low rate of criminality associated with suppressors, this legislation is a waste of taxpayer money. There are far more significant issues before us, as a state, that should be addressed.