Senate Legislation Introduction Thread

[Mr. Reactionary]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor: Mr. Reactionary

[Mr. Reactionary]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Mr. Reactionary]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Mr. Reactionary]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Section 2 has already been done.

Section 3 is probably unconstitutional on free speech grounds.

[Mr. Reactionary]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Section 2 has already been done.

Section 3 is probably unconstitutional on free speech grounds.

I seem to remember automatic background checks being placed on TSDB suspects, but I don't recall anything about a ban on firearm purchases for suspects, which is what this bill establishes.

[quote]
[quote]

LET'S TRY THIS ACT

SENATE BILL

To reduce gun violence
Be it enacted by the Congress of the Republic of Atlasia assembled
[quote]
SECTION 1: TITLE
1. This law shall be referred to as the Let's Try This Act.
SECTION II: NO FLY LIST REFORM
1. The government of Atlasia shall be required to have credible evidence to place suspects on the Terrorist Screening Database(TSDB).The evidence must be able to demonstrate that public safety would more likely than not be endangered should said suspect not be placed on the TSDB under the totality of the circumstances. Any decision to place a suspect on the TSDB is required to include any specific identifying characteristics if known.
2. The TSDB Review Panel is hereby created. This Panel shall consist of 7 active Atlasian judges, including 3 District Court Judges, 3 Appeal Court Judges, and 1 Supreme Court Justice. The judges for the panel shall be chosen randomly from the list of all active Judges, each year on January 1st. Any vacancy shall be filled for the remaining term through the same method within 30 days of the vacancy occurring.
3. Any person whose name is listed in the TSDB and who suffers injury as a result of this listing, shall be allowed to sue for equitable relief to require the TSDB to note the different identities, unless the party seeking that the petitioner be placed on the list shows by clear and convincing evidence that such placement is warranted because the petitioner poses a threat of committing an act of violent terrorism or piracy. Within 45 days of receiving a petition, the TSDB Review Panel shall convene and consider all evidence to determine if the petitioner is entitled to the relief demanded by. The TSDB Review Panel shall have the power to subpoena witnesses and examine evidence, including classified intelligence, in camera. If the TSDB Review Panel determines that there is clear and convincing evidence that petitioner should have been placed on the TSDB, then the petitioner may not challenge his or her placement on the TSDB for 1 year.
4. All persons listed in the TSDB, including as many specific identifying characteristics as are known, shall be reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)database.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Also, it seems like a stretch to call Section 3 unconstitutional, as those very same measures are being discussed in the US government right now by politicians such as Senator Bill Nelson.

You've never known Republicans to push blatantly unconstitutional laws? In the past 20 yrs weve seen a great change in how broadly we understand freedom of sppech. Congress does not have the power to ban speech unless the speech is part of a historical exclusion. If the ban discriminates on content (like the above proposal) it is of especially dubious constitutionality. If the ban acts as a prior restraint on speech it is even more likely to be struck down. And if the ban doesnt provide for alternative channels of speech that is also unconstitutional.

Recently the Supreme Court has had to strike down unconstitutional laws banning lying about winning military awards, videos of women in high heels crushing animals, violent video games sold to minors, for sale signs, phone sex hotlines, T Shirts, violent rap lyrics on facebook about your ex, and a host of other unpopular speech.

It goes further. Lower federal courts have recently held nonconsensual upskirt photography, tattoo parlors, panhandling, drive in movie theaters viewable from the road, anonymous notes left on cars, social media profiles, and a lot of other things that arent vocally spoken as protected speech.

This proposal purports to just straight up ban the communicative publishing of truthful information based on the content of the speech, even though said content is not one of the narrow few historical exclusions. This acts like a prior restraint which is even more suspect that if this was JUST content discrimination AND a non-allowable, non-historical exclusion. There are no adequate alternative channel provided for firearm blueprints as required by the Ladue case.

Like I get that you might want to do something on a topical issue, but as written I believe this violates free speech for 4 separate reasons, any one of which is constitutionally fatal.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Anyway, any more discussion about this should probably be saved for the Senate floor when the bill actually gets introduced.

It needs to be constitutional first so it can go to the floor.

 You might could amend it here to mandate serial numbers on them once printed if they get the code over the internet since thats interstate. The other thing is, 3D printed "guns" still require a metal firing pin to work, which means they satisfy the current requirements under the undetectable firearms act.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Anyway, any more discussion about this should probably be saved for the Senate floor when the bill actually gets introduced.

It needs to be constitutional first so it can go to the floor.

 You might could amend it here to mandate serial numbers on them once printed if they get the code over the internet since thats interstate. The other thing is, 3D printed "guns" still require a metal firing pin to work, which means they satisfy the current requirements under the undetectable firearms act.

The bill has been modified.

Just to clarify, is this modified version in the thread? I don't want to put the wrong version on the floor.

Its already on the floor

[Mr. Reactionary]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Reactionary]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Mr. Reactionary]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Mr. Reactionary]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Mr. Reactionary]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Mr. Reactionary]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Mr. Reactionary]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Mr. Reactionary]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Reactionary]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Reactionary]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Mr. Reactionary]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Mr. Reactionary]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Mr. Reactionary]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Mr. Reactionary]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Mr. Reactionary]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Mr. Reactionary]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Mr. Reactionary]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]