Constitutional Amendment to Right to Bear Arms

[Sam Spade]

What is really meant by "low-potency explosives"?

Could someone please clarify this? What types are being included into this category?

I assume right now, M80s, fireworks, dynamite, etc is banned by this.

Jake is quite right.  Though nothing is banned right now, per se, regional governments could ban these types of things as much as they well please.

I will come up with some legislation fairly quick if this passes and knowing my beliefs, I will make it fairly lenient. 

[Sam Spade]

Personally, as nothing but a mere citizen, I'd like to propose to the honorable senator from the Southeast the following wording:

"Each individual has the inherent Right of owning, using, and carrying firearms, or arms of any other description that are capable of killing less than 100 people at one time with one instantaneous initiation of that weapon. Any weapon more effective than that is not permitted to be in the possession of any individual under this constitution, including individuals operating in a governmental capacity, so that the life, liberty and property of all individuals within the territorial jurisdiction of this constitution and other jurisdictions may be realistically and effectively protected. Items capable of killing more than 100 people at one time with one instantaneous initiation of the item must not be designed for use as weaponry."

I have problems with the second half of this wording, considering as it might effect individuals in the military fighting in foreign countries.

[Sam Spade]

Ok, I will propose this wording replace the entirety of the present wording in my amendment, as per Bono, but with my modifications:

Each individual has the inherent Right of owning, using, and carrying firearms, or arms of any other description that are capable of killing less than 100 people at one time with one instantaneous initiation of that weapon.  Any weapon more effective than that is not permitted to be in the possession of any individual under this constitution.

This I think is sufficient and keeps the military as whole out of this.  I am not quite libertarian enough on this issue to think that the military be included in these provisions, Bono.  If you have any other suggestions, I'm all ears, though.

(I obviously think it's important for the military to have bunker-buster bombs, nuclear weapons, etc.)

[Sam Spade]

Each individual has the inherent Right of owning, using, and carrying firearms, or arms of any other description that are capable of killing less than 100 people at one time with one instantaneous initiation of that weapon. Any weapon more effective than that is not permitted to be in the possession of any individual under this constitution.

That's a pretty unpleasant sentence to put in our federal constitution.

Given the way Bono usually looks at federal laws, I am willing to bet more likely than not this is to prevent courts from interpreting the law as they see fit.

For example, I could put replace the line with:  capable of killing less than 100 people at one time

with...

capable of killing massive amounts of people at one time

but there is a logic that says that that could be interpreted by the courts for whatever they see fit.

[Sam Spade]

Ok, I will propose this wording replace the entirety of the present wording in my amendment, as per Bono, but with my modifications:

Each individual has the inherent Right of owning, using, and carrying firearms, or arms of any other description that are capable of killing less than 100 people at one time with one instantaneous initiation of that weapon.  Any weapon more effective than that is not permitted to be in the possession of any individual under this constitution.

This I think is sufficient and keeps the military as whole out of this.  I am not quite libertarian enough on this issue to think that the military be included in these provisions, Bono.  If you have any other suggestions, I'm all ears, though.

(I obviously think it's important for the military to have bunker-buster bombs, nuclear weapons, etc.)

Given the rather negative reception this Amendment has received, I would like to withdraw it and propose something much simpler in its place.

Article VI, Clause 4 as defined in this Constitutional Amendment, shall be amended to read the following:

The right to keep and bear fire-arms and low-potency explosives shall not be infringed.

This is getting rid of the "Senate defines things" part of the clause and adds "keep" to the clause, something which I overlooked earlier.

[Sam Spade]

Once again we have come upon a situation where an amendment to this legislation has been proposed and almost immediately come up to a vote, and whats worse but the time before it went to vote was probably some of the quietest in the day - I certainly didn't see it myself.

I cannot stress how bad I think it is for decision making for amendments to be moved directly to vote without giving Senators at least 24 hours to voice their views on the matter - and to then let debate flow its natural course before calling the vote.

I can't let this by-the-by attitude of the Senate continue, where it starts voting on things as important as this without really considering its consequences.

I agree also.

There is specifically a section in the Official Senate Procedural Resolution which deals with this, saying that every Amendment must have at least 24 hours of debate time.  It's toward the beginning of Article 4, but I forgot where without looking at it directly.  Once we get debate on that thing, then this issue will go away.

Until then, I can only hope that Gabu gives every amendment 24 hours debate time.

[Sam Spade]

Aye to the amendment.

MAS, though I don't believe that anyone will try and restrict our rights now, I am also weary of remembering that the composition of the Country and our Senate changes over time.

As this time passes, we may see Senates that our more liberal than even the Third Senate, and I don't want to take that chance to let them have the chance to restrict the rights of fellow Atlasians.

[Sam Spade]

This amendment has passed and all dat.

Considering the contention of this amendment, I'm going to wait another day for more debate (thereby reaching the 5 day limit) before calling a motion.

[Sam Spade]

I'm not entirely convinced that giving people the right to own any kind of explosives is a good idea, considering the existence of any hidden terrorist cells resident in Atlasia.

I thought this was what we had a CIA and FBI for.

[Sam Spade]

My point was mainly that by allowing everybody the right to own mortars and grenades and whatnot, we're also allowing psychos to do the same.  As far as the constitutional amendment goes, fine.  But I would expect some pretty restrictive legislation to go with it, in order to prevent this.

Well it is within the Senate's powers to define what a low-potency explosive is or what is low-potency.

Not anymore - Sam's amendment to this removed such power, and effectively final decision of quite what our intent was will be decided in the Courts. Which is amusing because I'm not entirely sure that anybody really knows what our intent is.

With anything like this, intent can be manipulated with the power of a few. 

My final thought was, considering how this forum tends to be, I would rather not give Senators the final power to determine what this clause could mean (always thinking of things like the Third Senate) and would rather give it to the courts, since people are less likely to bring court cases than present legislation.

Chances are, with an amendment like this, it will keep things in the Regions.  That was also my intention in removing the clause.

[Sam Spade]

My point was mainly that by allowing everybody the right to own mortars and grenades and whatnot, we're also allowing psychos to do the same.  As far as the constitutional amendment goes, fine.  But I would expect some pretty restrictive legislation to go with it, in order to prevent this.

Well it is within the Senate's powers to define what a low-potency explosive is or what is low-potency.

Not anymore - Sam's amendment to this removed such power, and effectively final decision of quite what our intent was will be decided in the Courts. Which is amusing because I'm not entirely sure that anybody really knows what our intent is.

With anything like this, intent can be manipulated with the power of a few. 

My final thought was, considering how this forum tends to be, I would rather not give Senators the final power to determine what this clause could mean (always thinking of things like the Third Senate) and would rather give it to the courts, since people are less likely to bring court cases than present legislation.

Chances are, with an amendment like this, it will keep things in the Regions.  That was also my intention in removing the clause.

Why don't you just make the amendment explicitly say that each region has the right to define "low-potency", if that's what you want?

Because that's already sort of a given.  Since the Senate has no power in "powers of the Senate" to define these sorts of things, it will be up to the Regions to.

And the courts will be the final arbiter as to whether regional law fulfills the intent of the clause.

I am all for defining things clearly.  However, with certain things, like this amendment, the more we define things clearly, the more loopholes are given.  I would prefer to keep it rather vague.

Sorry if I shifted my own opinion on this one.  I occasionally do that.

[Sam Spade]

Can someone tell me what the point of owning a "low-potency explosives" besides for blowing sh**t up, and hurting other people? Adding this is useless. I'm all for not infringing on the right to bear arms, but low potency explosives is crossing the line. Why make it easier for terriosts to own explosives no matter how "low-potency" they are. Sure I not for banning fireworks and that crap, but just because it doesnt say "low-potency explosives" in the consitution doesnt mean thats illegal. I URGE ALL SENATORS TO VOTE NAY OR CHANGE THERE VOTE TO NAY.

As history tells us, terrorists can get explosives any way they want to, regardless of what "laws" we may put in the way.  The best way to prevent terrorism in this country is to go after the terrorists themselves using law enforcement and by making sure that checks on who is allowed to own these things (ie, not criminals) are enforced.

I would also like to ask the distinguished Senator to please not shout in the Senate.  We can all hear him loud and clear. 

[Sam Spade]

Considering as 24 hours have passed, I motion to bring this amendment to a vote.

[Sam Spade]

Aye.

[Sam Spade]

Unless anybody particularly objects, I plan to post one voting thread for this amendment and the federal marriage amendment too, provided the latter passes.  No use in separate threads cluttering the board.

That's a good idea, I think I'll do that too.

As the one who sort of spearheaded this amendment through, I am quite fine with this decision on votes that yall have made; though by the looks of it, my bet would be that the other Amendment does not have sufficient Senate support to pass.