PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 2, 2021
Blocking Rioters and Insurrectionists from our Cities to Keep us Safe Act of 2021 or the BRICKS Act of 2021
This bill increases criminal penalties for rioting and related offenses (e.g., inciting a riot).
First, the bill increases from 5 to 10 years the statutory maximum prison term for a rioting offense.
Second, it establishes higher statutory maximum penalties for rioting offenses that involve certain aggravating characteristics. Specifically, it provides
a prison term of up to 25 years for a rioting offense that results in serious bodily injury or includes a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire; and
a prison term of any years or for life for a rioting offense that results in death or includes kidnapping, attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or attempt to kill.
People & committees
Rep. Buck, Ken [R-CO-4] · R–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Jan 3, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.687 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.687 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.687 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.687 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.