She Found Rare Coins Worth $40 Million—Then the Government Took Them

A woman discovered rare 1933 coins in her family’s safe-deposit box. Can the government confiscate them?

By Vicki Glembocki

Noma Bar for Reader's DigestWhen Joan Langbord found ten gold coins in a family safe-­deposit box in 2003, she knew she’d unburied a treasure. Langbord, then 75, had worked in her late father’s Philadelphia jewelry store her entire life, and she was fairly sure that 
the coins were 1933 double eagles. Designed by American sculptor 
Augustus Saint-Gaudens with Lady Liberty on one side and a bald eagle on the other, the 1933 double eagle is one of America’s rarest and most beautiful coins.

Although 445,500 double eagles were minted in 1933, each one valued at $20, they were never issued (unlike these rare dimes worth nearly $2 million). Instead, 500 coins were held by the U.S. Mint’s cashier, and the rest were sealed away in the agency’s basement vault. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had pulled all gold coins from 
circulation because people were hoarding gold during the Depression, depleting the Federal Reserve’s stash. 
The Mint ultimately sent two of the 1933 double eagles to the Smithsonian; the rest were melted into bars and stored in the just-built Fort Knox in Kentucky.

Noma Bar for Reader's Digest

Or so the Mint thought. In the 1940s, reports of private collectors trading 1933 double eagles shocked Mint officials and sparked a Secret Service investigation. The agents discovered that a cashier had smuggled an unknown number of the coins out of the Mint. The Feds traced ten of them to Philadelphia jeweler ­Israel Switt—Joan Langbord’s father. Switt had sold those coins to private collectors, later testifying that he 
had no records of how he’d obtained them or from whom he’d bought them. He was never prosecuted for any crime.

The trail went cold until almost 
60 years later, when an English coin dealer tried to sell a 1933 double 
eagle to a New York collector. The U.S. government immediately seized it. It turned out to be a stolen coin Switt had sold to a Philadelphia collector; it had later been sold by a Texas collector to Egypt’s King Farouk, in 1944. Unaware then that the Secret Service was investigating the stolen coins, 
the Department of the Treasury mistakenly had allowed King Farouk to export the coin. Because of its own 
error, in 2002 the government agreed to sell that 1933 double eagle at auction and split the proceeds between the English coin dealer and the Mint. It sold for $7.6 million. (If any of these 15 valuable coins are in your wallet, you could get a nice chunk of change too.)

It was two years later that Langbord took her 1933 double eagles to the Mint for authentication. Assuming that her father had owned the coins legally, she hoped to make a similar arrangement, which would have netted about $40 million, according to Langbord’s original claim. The Mint refused—and confiscated the coins, claiming that the double eagles “already are, and always have been, property belonging to the United States.”

In 2006, Langbord sued the Mint, the Treasury, and various federal 
officials. She claimed there was a 
period in 1933, after the coins were minted but before Roosevelt pulled gold from the market, when her 
father could have legally purchased them. The government maintained that the coins were stolen.

Should the government return 
the coins to Joan Langbord? You 
be the judge.

The Verdict

Noma Bar for Reader's Digest

No, but it took the courts nearly a decade to make that call. 
The case came down to one question: Were the coins stolen, or was it possible that they were accidentally but legally issued and then sold to Switt? The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in 
August 2016 that the coins were the Mint’s property, citing testimony showing that Mint records “track the movement of each 1933 double eagle. These records were remarkably detailed.” In other words, says Mint attorney Greg Weinman, “these coins didn’t go out through the front door—they went out the back door.” Langbord appealed to the Supreme Court, but in April 2017, it declined to hear the case.

ENDING THE CONGRESSIONAL EXEMPTION FROM OBAMACARE

ENDING THE CONGRESSIONAL

EXEMPTION FROM OBAMACARE

Toolkit for Activists

www.

teapartypatriots

.org

This [congressional exemption from

ObamaCare] is an issue of fundamental

fairness. Lawmakers are not above the

laws that they pass and I believe that it

is crucial that Members of Congress

abide by the same laws that their own

constituents follow.

–

SENATOR TED CRUZ



1025 Rose Creek Dr., Ste. 620-322 | Woodstock, GA 30189 | www.

teapartypatriots

.org

TABLE OF CONTENTS

3

HOW TO USE THIS TOOLKIT

4

OPTIONS FOR ENGAGEMENT

5

AN OVERVIEW OF THE EXEMPTION

7

TALKING POINTS

8

SAMPLE TWEETS

9

HOW TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR

10

SAMPLE LETTER TO THE EDITOR

11

SAMPLE LETTER TO MEMBER OF CONGRESS

12

SAMPLE LETTER TO THE WHITE HOUSE & ADMINISTRATION

13

OP-EDS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

16

ABOUT TEA PARTY PATRIOTS

Tea Party Patriots regularly provides toolkits that correspond to the major legislative battles taking place in

Washington, D.C. This special toolkit aims to provide background information and tools for engagement on the

important topic of ending the Congressional exemption from Obamacare.

It has been more than seven years since Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly

referred to as “Obamacare.” During that time, the law has failed to live up to the Democrats’ promises. Congress, not

wanting to suffer alongside the rest of us under the law, worked behind closed doors with President Obama back in

2013 to create a way to evade the law. The plain text of ObamaCare requires that Members of Congress and their

staff members go on an ObamaCare exchange. Congress wanted to retain its generous taxpayer-funded subsidies for

health insurance, so congressional leaders and President Obama crafted a sneaky and dishonest plan for Congress

(with more than 12,000 employees!) to enroll in Washington, D.C.’s Small Business Exchange.

This toolkit explains, in depth, the background of this exemption, as well as ways for you to engage.

Our position is simple: We firmly believe that Congress will have the impetus and the inclination to repeal

ObamaCare once Members of Congress and their staff get to experience the harsh realities of the law.

We oppose the congressional exemption for two reasons – one is practical, while the other is deeply rooted in the

principles that make our country so great. On the practical side, we do believe that Congress will move swiftly to

repeal the law if Members of Congress and their staff experience a hardship by the law. (Self-interest is an

undeniably strong motivator, and after seven years of living with countless ObamaCare hardships, we are of the

mindset that Congress should have some first-hand experience with these same hardships.)

On the other hand, there is a moral imperative at stake here. We are a nation that highly values the rule of law and

the notion that everyone is equal before the law. Our nation was founded on a principle that was, at the time, quite

radical in its brilliance – that even the elected officials would be subject to the law. Writing in Federalist No. 57,

James Madison argued that the greatest defense against “oppressive measures” would be the safeguard that arises

when Members of Congress are themselves subject to the “full operation” of the law.

ObamaCare is, indeed, an oppressive measure. And we believe James Madison is correct that the best course of

action is to require those on Capitol Hill to live under the laws they write. This toolkit is our best attempt to

produce that result.

We have designed this toolkit for use by individuals and groups alike. We have included several different types of

resources, such as a sample letter to the editor, which can be signed by an individual or an entire tea party group.

If you see something missing, or have any recommendations for future toolkits, please let us know. We always love

to hear how local groups and individual activists are using these resources to get engaged.

We look forward to seeing how you employ the various components of this toolkit!

In liberty,

The Tea Party Patriots Support Team

3

1025 Rose Creek Dr., Ste. 620-322 | Woodstock, GA 30189 | www.

teapartypatriots

.org

HOW TO USE THIS TOOLKIT

1025 Rose Creek Dr., Ste. 620-322 | Woodstock, GA 30189 | www.

teapartypatriots

.org

OPTIONS FOR ENGAGEMENT

Write 1 Facebook post to share with your friends about the need to end the illegal and unfair exemption

from ObamaCare that Congress currently enjoys. (Total time: 10 minutes)

Tweet about the Congressional exemption. (Total time: 10 minutes)

Write a letter to the editor. (Total time: 1 hour)

Write an email or letter to a Member of Congress. (Total time: 30 minutes)

Write an email or letter to President Trump. (Total time: 3 hours)

Sign our petition and be sure to “check the box” so we can send your name to Congress. (Total time: 5

minutes) Our petition can be found here:

https://obamacareexemption.act.teapartypatriots.org/

Share our petition on social media. (Total time: 5 minutes) Our petition can be found here:

https://obamacareexemption.act.teapartypatriots.org/

Join us for a rally in Washington, D.C. on September 23, 2017, when Tea Party Patriots goes back to

Washington. Part of the rally’s focus will be ending the congressional exemption. (Total time: 12 hours)

Call other Americans to ask them to sign the petition (Total time: 30 minutes+) [For details on this activity,

please

endtheexemption@teapartypatriots.org

and we will email you a script along with phone numbers

of people to call.]

4

1025 Rose Creek Dr., Ste. 620-322 | Woodstock, GA 30189 | www.

teapartypatriots

.org

AN OVERVIEW OF THE

CONGRESSIONAL EXEMPTION

5

In March of 2010, Congress enacted the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). That law includes Section 1312 (d)(3)(D),

which reads:

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the

Federal Government may make available to members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their

service as a member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans. (I) created under this act (or an

amendment made by this act); or (II) offered through an exchange established under this act (or an amendment

made by this act).”

The translation? As of January 1, 2014, Members of Congress and their staff would no longer be allowed to

participate in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). Instead, they would be required to enroll in

an ObamaCare exchange.

Now, this is where it gets tricky.

Under the FEHBP, Members of Congress and their staff received generous taxpayer-funded subsidies to partially

cover their insurance premiums (up to 74% of the premium price, in fact). That benefit averaged out to around

$5,000 per single employee and around $11,500 for each employee with a family plan. That’s a generous benefit,

and it is easy to understand why Members of Congress and their staff wanted to retain such a great perk of

their jobs.

It is important to note that the language of the law does not allow for any special health insurance subsidies

or credits.

Once President Obama signed ObamaCare into law, Congress was fated to have the same undesirable experience

with the law that everyday Americans were facing.

Congressional leadership, at one point, considered a vote to appropriate more funds to help staff and Members

of Congress pay for their ObamaCare coverage. But, as one can well imagine, that idea was quickly abandoned

because there was no way the American people would accept a highly visible floor vote in which Congress

opted – on the record! – to exempt itself from an unpopular law.

So, what to do?

This is where Congress got creative – and resorted to unlawful and deceitful measures.

Behind closed doors, congressional leadership met with President Obama to plead with him to intervene and create

an edict of some form to relieve them of the law’s effects. (As an aside, for those interested in American

government and our robust system of checks and balances and separated powers, it is worth reflecting on the

profoundly tragic aspect that our lawmakers sought a directive from the president to override and rewrite,

essentially, the plain text of the law. Members of Congress, our lawmakers who, by definition, have the

constitutional authority to write and rewrite and amend laws, were so brazen in their attempt to keep ObamaCare

intact for the rest of Americans while exempting themselves, that they could not take the constitutionally

proscribed path of amending or repealing the unworkable law. No, in this instance, the Members of Congress

jettisoned their constitutional duty, seeking, instead, relief from the president.)

So, President Obama, who on occasion boasted about his willingness to step in and act where Congress wouldn’t,

was all too happy to oblige. And with that, President Obama gave a directive to OPM (the Office of Personnel

Management) to allow Members of Congress and their staff to continue receiving FEHBP subsidies while on the

ObamaCare exchange.

Section 8901(6) of Title V requires that FEHBP plans be “group” plans. In order to accommodate that requirement,

OPM declared that the DC SHOP exchange (designed for small businesses with fifty or fewer employees) would be

the appropriate place for Members of Congress and their staff.

Congress is made up of two chambers – the U.S. House of Representatives and the United States Senate. Each

functions separately as distinct employers. It is critically important to note that congressional staffers do not work

for Congressman Smith or Senator James. They work for either the United States House of Representatives or the

United States Senate. Why does that distinction matter?

The U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate

each have thousands of employees. They had no business being in the D.C. Small Business Exchange.

An employee at the House of Representatives and an employee at the Senate both signed documentation certifying

that each chamber had 45 employees. Today, Members of Congress and their staff are enrolled in the wrong

ObamaCare exchange because of falsified documents, fraudulent applications, and a massive deception.

In the following pages, we will explain in further detail the problems with the illegal exemption from ObamaCare.

1025 Rose Creek Dr., Ste. 620-322 | Woodstock, GA 30189 | www.

teapartypatriots

.org

AN OVERVIEW OF THE

CONGRESSIONAL EXEMPTION

6

In March of 2010, Congress enacted the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). That law includes Section 1312 (d)(3)(D),

which reads:

“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the

Federal Government may make available to members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their

service as a member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans. (I) created under this act (or an

amendment made by this act); or (II) offered through an exchange established under this act (or an amendment

made by this act).”

The translation? As of January 1, 2014, Members of Congress and their staff would no longer be allowed to

participate in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). Instead, they would be required to enroll in

an ObamaCare exchange.

Now, this is where it gets tricky.

Under the FEHBP, Members of Congress and their staff received generous taxpayer-funded subsidies to partially

cover their insurance premiums (up to 74% of the premium price, in fact). That benefit averaged out to around

$5,000 per single employee and around $11,500 for each employee with a family plan. That’s a generous benefit,

and it is easy to understand why Members of Congress and their staff wanted to retain such a great perk of

their jobs.

It is important to note that the language of the law does not allow for any special health insurance subsidies

or credits.

Once President Obama signed ObamaCare into law, Congress was fated to have the same undesirable experience

with the law that everyday Americans were facing.

Congressional leadership, at one point, considered a vote to appropriate more funds to help staff and Members

of Congress pay for their ObamaCare coverage. But, as one can well imagine, that idea was quickly abandoned

because there was no way the American people would accept a highly visible floor vote in which Congress

opted – on the record! – to exempt itself from an unpopular law.

So, what to do?

This is where Congress got creative – and resorted to unlawful and deceitful measures.

Behind closed doors, congressional leadership met with President Obama to plead with him to intervene and create

an edict of some form to relieve them of the law’s effects. (As an aside, for those interested in American

government and our robust system of checks and balances and separated powers, it is worth reflecting on the

profoundly tragic aspect that our lawmakers sought a directive from the president to override and rewrite,

essentially, the plain text of the law. Members of Congress, our lawmakers who, by definition, have the

constitutional authority to write and rewrite and amend laws, were so brazen in their attempt to keep ObamaCare

intact for the rest of Americans while exempting themselves, that they could not take the constitutionally

proscribed path of amending or repealing the unworkable law. No, in this instance, the Members of Congress

jettisoned their constitutional duty, seeking, instead, relief from the president.)

So, President Obama, who on occasion boasted about his willingness to step in and act where Congress wouldn’t,

was all too happy to oblige. And with that, President Obama gave a directive to OPM (the Office of Personnel

Management) to allow Members of Congress and their staff to continue receiving FEHBP subsidies while on the

ObamaCare exchange.

Section 8901(6) of Title V requires that FEHBP plans be “group” plans. In order to accommodate that requirement,

OPM declared that the DC SHOP exchange (designed for small businesses with fifty or fewer employees) would be

the appropriate place for Members of Congress and their staff.

Congress is made up of two chambers – the U.S. House of Representatives and the United States Senate. Each

functions separately as distinct employers. It is critically important to note that congressional staffers do not work

for Congressman Smith or Senator James. They work for either the United States House of Representatives or the

United States Senate. Why does that distinction matter?

The U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate

each have thousands of employees. They had no business being in the D.C. Small Business Exchange.

An employee at the House of Representatives and an employee at the Senate both signed documentation certifying

that each chamber had 45 employees. Today, Members of Congress and their staff are enrolled in the wrong

ObamaCare exchange because of falsified documents, fraudulent applications, and a massive deception.

In the following pages, we will explain in further detail the problems with the illegal exemption from ObamaCare.

1025 Rose Creek Dr., Ste. 620-322 | Woodstock, GA 30189 | www.

teapartypatriots

.org

TALKING POINTS ON THE CONGRESSIONAL

EXEMPTION FROM OBAMACARE

7

Congress should not be above the law.

• Congress passed ObamaCare in 2010, over the loud objections of the American people. Americans remain

opposed to the law.

• Congress has given itself a special exemption that no one else in America gets.

• There is a moral imperative at stake: Members of Congress MUST live under the laws they write.

• Members of Congress should not be treated as a special class of citizens.

IT’S TIME TO REPEAL THE LAW

• Then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi famously said at the time that Congress had to “pass it to find out

what’s in it.” Once Congress learned what was in the law, Members and their staff began working feverishly for

a special opt-out plan for themselves.

• Average American citizens not fortunate enough to work on Capitol Hill are still struggling with higher premiums,

loss of insurance, and penalties from the IRS. We want an exemption and a reprieve from this terrible law!

• ObamaCare is a deeply flawed law, and the fact that Congress wants to continue to be shielded from the full

effects of the law is proof that it is time for FULL REPEAL.

• Repealing ObamaCare is the best way to guarantee that all Americans – not just the privileged elites in

Congress – will be shielded from the law’s damaging effects.

Inland Manufacturing Releases Tactical M1 Carbine Pistol

For the gun owner who thought they had everything, you might want to scope this news release from Inland Manufacturing. . . it sounds like they’ve been working on something that may peak your interest.
Check it out in the news release below:
 New .30 Caliber Pistol for 2018
Available soon
 MKS Supply, Inc., Dayton, OH, October, 2017 – Inland Manufacturing, makers of the incredibly popular Inland series of M1Carbines, debuts its new .30 caliber carbine pistol.
Inland’s new M30-P pistol with Gear Head Mod II Tail Hook Arm Brace is a highly modified version of Inland’s popular full size .30 caliber carbine. It is fitted into a special Sage Enhanced Battle Rifle tactical carbine stock, and comes with a Gear Head Works Mod II Arm Brace, Ergo Sure Grip pistol grip, and handy (1/2×28 tpi threaded) 12-inch barrel.
The Sage EBR M30-P chassis*1 is specially designed for this Inland pistol and when combined with the Mod II Tail Hook Arm Brace (fits the forearm, it is not a shoulder stock) makes effective one-hand shooting a breeze. The easily removable arm brace is incredibly quick to employ for a firm, positive fit for either right or left hand use.
Inland’s 12-inch barrel delivers excellent ballistics, especially with today’s modern ammunition. Each M30-P is shipped with one 10-round magazine and, like all Inland .30 caliber carbines and pistols, the magazine catch fits higher-capacity military and civilian magazines.*2
These features combine to make the Inland M30-P pistol a highly efficient, compact, robust, and accurate system.
SPECIFICATIONS:
Barrel: 12-inch threaded muzzle (½-inch x 28 tpi) with protector.
Stock: Sage EBR Aluminum Chassis, MIL-SPEC black anodized and Gear Head Works Mod II Tail Hook Arm Brace.
Caliber: .30 caliber carbine
Sight: M1 style, with adjustable ghost ring aperture rear sight.
Overall length: With arm brace: 29 3/8 inches – Without arm brace: 20 1/4 inches.
Weight: With arm brace: 5.5 pounds – Without arm brace: 4.5 pounds.
Capacity: One 10-round magazine with each pistol.
MSRP: $1699

Puerto Rico's streets crawl with heavily armed, masked mercenaries

Puerto Rico's streets crawl with heavily armed, masked mercenaries bearing no insignia or nametags  Though Puerto Rican law prohibits ownership and bearing of most long-guns and especially semiautomatic weapons, the streets of the stricken US colony now throng with mercenaries in tactical gear bearing such arms, their faces masked. They wear no insignia or nametags and won't say who they work for, apart from vague statements in broken Spanish: "We work with the government. It’s a humanitarian mission, we’re helping Puerto Rico." Rosa Emilia Rodríguez, head of Puerto Rico's Federal Prosecutor’s Office, initially dismissed reports of the mercenaries, then, after reporters from the Centro de Periodismo Investigativo pressed her she said she'd "check it out." After Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, Erik Prince's Blackwater mercenaries flooded the city again, turning it into an "armed camp", after Brigadier Gen. Gary Jones, commander of the Louisiana National Guard’s Joint Task Force announced "This place is going to look like Little Somalia. We’re going to go out and take this city back. This will be a combat operation to get this city under control." Erik Prince is now reportedly considering a senate run as a Trumpist candidate in Wyoming. His sister, Betsy Devos, has used millions from her husband's pyramid-scheme fortunes to fund efforts to destroy public education, and now serves as Trump's Secretary of Education. Though the mercenaries in Puerto Rico won't identify their employers, there's good evidence that Blackwater (now called Academi) is or will soon be operating there, as well as other notorious mercenary gangs like Ranger America and the Whitestone Group. Security firm Academi —known by its former name, Blackwater, which won $21 million contract with the U.S. government to provide security services during the Iraq war in 2003— said that they already have offers from the local and federal government and by the Red Cross to come to Puerto Rico. “We’re ready to go,” said Paul Donahue, Chief Operating Officer of Constellis, Academi’s parent company, in a phone interview with the CPI. He explained that if the government of Puerto Rico accepts the proposal made by Academi to respond to the government’s offer, they would be providing security services for water transportation. The company already operates in the Caribbean islands of Dominica and St. Martin, where they arrived after Hurricanes Irma and Maria made landfall. This company, described as an army of mercenaries by investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill, has changed its name three times since its founding in 1997 by a former Navy Seal Officer (United States Marine, Air and Land Teams.)

East Texas soldier dies serving in Iraq

TYLER, Texas - On Tuesday, the Department of Defense announced the death of an East Texas soldier who was supporting operation inherent resolve.
Spc. Alexander W.  Missildine, 20, of Tyler, died Sunday, in Iraq when an explosive device detonated near his convoy. The incident is under investigation.
Before making the decision to join the U.S. Army, Missildine was a student at Robert E. Lee Hish School and he served customers at Bruno's Pizza in Tyler as a busboy. Bruno's owner Jay Rumbelow said, "He left an impression on every one here. He always had a smile on his face."
"Day one he surprised me because he gave me a hug when we first met," said Jo Jean Smith.
While employed at Bruno's Pizza he made many friends. All saddened to hear that their friend was gone. "I certainly didn't expect getting a phone call said, "Rumbelow."
"I was saddened to hear about his early death. It's such a shame. He was such a fine young man, said Smith"
Missildine's family asked for privacy at this time. Tuesday a yellow ribbon tied around a tree of their home. To remind us that their son was a true American hero.
Tyler ISD released the following statement on Spc. Missildine's passing:
"Tyler ISD is saddened to learn of the passing Spc. Alexander Missildine, a 2015 graduate of Robert E. Lee High School. The District joins the Tyler community in thanking him for his service to our country. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family during this time of loss."

Small-town Texas company that invented 'bump stock' is in the spotlight after Las Vegas shooting

 

MORAN -- In this tiny West Texas town on Thursday, Jeremiah Cottle was trying to take comfort in the support he has gotten from neighbors.
But elsewhere,  there was little comfort. Cottle and the company he owns, Slide Fire Solutions, have come under heavy criticism for selling a rifle attachment that few outside of gun enthusiast circles had ever heard of before this week.
But since a gunman killed 58 people attending a country music concert Sunday night in Las Vegas, a flood of attention has turned to Cottle's little-known device, called a "bump stock" or "bump fire stock," which may have enabled Stephen Paddock to turn semiautomatic, one-shot-per-trigger-pull rifles into ones able to fire much like machine guns.
Online commenters have called his invention "irresponsible" and said he has blood on his hands. Retailers have rushed to pull the items from shelves and websites. Members of Congress have called for the bump stock to be banned. And in a surprise announcement, even the National Rifle Association said it would not oppose regulation of the device.
Unshaven and red-eyed,  Cottle, 40, declined to talk about the shooting or the blowback against the company he founded in 2010.
All of the attention clearly has taken him by surprise.
"I'm a hunting and fishing kind of person," he said, standing in front of his business that is housed in a corrugated metal building at the end of a gravel driveway.

Texas manufacturer of 'bump stocks' halts new sales

Texas manufacturer of 'bump stocks' halts new sales

Demand is overwhelming as calls for ban surge, manufacturer says

By Alejandra Matos

October 5, 2017 Updated: October 5, 2017 8:27pm

A 'bump stock' device fits on a semi-automatic rifle to make it fire like a fully automatic weapon.

AUSTIN - The Texas-based manufacturer of "bump stocks," the accessory used to provide a deadly boost to the gunfire in the Las Vegas massacre, temporarily has suspended its online sales due to overwhelming demand as calls to limit - or possibly ban - the devices grow stronger.

Before a dinner with senior military leaders Thursday, President Donald Trump told reporters his administration is considering whether "bump stock" devices that allow semi-automatic rifles to perform more like fully automatic weapons should be banned.

"We'll be looking into that over the next short period of time," he said.
Slide Fire, based in Moran, 40 miles east of Abilene, posted a notice on its website that it was no longer taking orders "to provide the best service with those already placed." The company is the largest producer of the device.

Bump Fire Systems, also in Moran and operated by the same owners as Slide Fire, also posted on its website that it was temporarily halting orders "due to extremely high demands."

Law enforcement officials said Stephen Paddock used several weapons equipped with the bump stocks to unleash a barrage of bullets into a crowd of 22,000 concertgoers from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay.
NRA confers with feds

Translator

To read this article in one of Houston's most-spoken languages, click on the button below.

Select Language​▼

The bump stocks use the force of the gun's recoil to allow the gun to bounce off the shooter's trigger finger.
The modification allows a semi-automatic weapon to fire rounds at a rate that resembles that of an automatic weapon.
On Thursday, the National Rifle Association called on the federal government to review whether the bump stocks comply with law.
In a statement, the NRA said the device should be "subject to additional regulations."
Democratic strategists were quick to contend the NRA is maneuvering to have Trump attempt to deal with the issue administratively through federal agencies rather than supporting action in Congress, where gun control advocates are eager to try to pass additional restrictions beyond those dealing with bump stocks.

Some top Republicans in Congress, including House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, have said they are open to considering a ban on the device, which costs about $200.

In Congress, support for a bump stock ban is starting to coalesce around several bills.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., unveiled a bill Wednesday that would ban the manufacture, sale and transfer of bump stocks and other accessories that can accelerate a semi-automatic rifle's rate of fire.