Northeast Assembly Thread

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

48 Hours has now passed, we will now move, assuming the Rep considers Rep Sbane's amendment as friendly, to vote on the Bill in it's entirety.

Please vote Aye or Nay

Vote will close in 24 hours.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Aye

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The Bill has passed.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Alright, the Assembly will now look at Rep Wormguy's Bill

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I move that the Assembly consider this Bill, all in favour say 'aye' ... the ayes have it.

Rep Wormguy, please speak to your Bill, debate on this Bill will last 48 hours from now.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I personally find the goal of the Bill quite positive... we need more organ donorship, without question.

I do have some issues with the overall tone of the Bill however, it stresses what rights people should have, but without any significant safeguards for abuse.

I would certainly consider supporting this Bill if it were more actually targeted on increasing organ donation... and less on 'rights' ...

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I endorse this bill.

I personally find the goal of the Bill quite positive... we need more organ donorship, without question.

I do have some issues with the overall tone of the Bill however, it stresses what rights people should have, but without any significant safeguards for abuse.

I would certainly consider supporting this Bill if it were more actually targeted on increasing organ donation... and less on 'rights' ...

The second half of wormy's bill is to provide safeguards against abuse. If you don't think there are enough safeguards and wish to provide some ideas, please let us know. Also, what exactly about the 'rights' aspect of the bill worries you? Do you oppose these rights and if so why? The only real effect of his bill is that people that need organ transplants will have an easier time receiving organs that they need. What could be wrong with that?

I don't see significant safeguards at all, aside from "if they want to do it, let them"

Which isn't a safeguard.

I would not support this Bill unless there is a clear medical oversight. People cannot go ahead with considering this process unless a Doctor has signed off that they are not in any way mentally deficient and that they will not be otherwise be put in medical jeopardy.

I oppose the idea that a right exists without an equal responsibility attached to it.

I do believe that people have the fundamental right to determine what happens to their bodies, but I would consider it a considerable dereliction of our duty of care to encourage potentially risky acts without considerable oversight.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Hmm...

6. A surgeon may, at his or her own discretion, declare a person mentally incompetent for the purposes of selling his or her bodily organs.

In the future, you may want to read the bill first.

Apologies.... my brain has clearly been a touch frazzled...

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

So... after reading this Bill again... yes reading it.

I note some pretty basic concerns.

1. It's a very simplistic approach to a complex problem.
2. The belief that the individual has the right to determine what happens to their body, does therefore equal that being able to sell organs for money is a natural progression... maybe that makes perfect sense to you, but not to me.
3. The safeguards appear there, but the language doesn't seem that strong there's a lot of 'may's in there and no clear contraventions with exception of court declared mental instability... which is a very high standard.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The period for Debate has concluded.

We will now move for a vote on this Bill.

You will have 24 hours to vote 'aye' or 'nay'

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Nay

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Voting period has ended.

2-2 tie

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

We will now move to consideration of Rep Wormguy's Bill.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I move that the Bill be considered, all in favour say 'aye'.... the 'aye's have it.

Can Rep Wormguy speak to this Bill - debate will last for 48 hours.


...also a procedural note for those proposing legislation - please refer to it as a Bill, not an Act, as we all know it's a Bill until the Governor signs it.

Thanks

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

As you know, we come from completely different perspectives on this... however, I don't have many concerns with this Bill...

The only thing that worries me - is it would potentially be challenged as it could be open to abuse... for example, a gun shop owner, may not want to sell a gun to someone of a particular ethnicity.

While I do like severe restrictions on the availability of lethal weapons, and shop owners should have the right to refuse service to someone that they consider unstable ... however, having a coverall of "for any reason" - would counter anti-discrimination laws...

While gun shop owners should have the right to refuse service to someone they consider a risk, a customer cannot be refused service based purely on race.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Look, I don't disagree with that... however, I believe that this law's constitutionality would be challenged, and probably successfully.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

So I can refuse to sell to a black guy simply because he is black?

I don't know.  Is that what you want to do?

Don't be coy, you know that's a legitimate concern.

In relation to your question about Constitutionality

ii) Equality
All persons of the Northeast are born equal, and shall be treated as so, no matter their age, gender, race, religion, disability, economic status or sexual orientation. No government institution may favour one group over another physical constraints excepting.

The second part of the sentence refers to Government but the first sentence is very clear in my mind.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

While we should be in the business of preventing murder, we shouldn't be in the business of potentially promoting racial discrimination.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

While we should be in the business of preventing murder, we shouldn't be in the business of potentially promoting racial discrimination.

In which way does this bill promote racial discrimination?  I fail to see the "racial discrimination tax credit" or "segregation regulation" but I'm sure that if I keep looking I'll find it.

Because a Bill doesn't specifically say it will do something, doesn't mean you can't see what the consequences of this Bill could be.

When you say someone can refuse to serve someone for ANY reason... I mean... seriously.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Well you know my view on availability of lethal weapons.

If people were serious about getting guns out of the hands of the unstable and criminal, there are more thorough ways to do it.

But since guns are here, and don't look like going anywhere... I do have significant concerns, by the way, since you resorted to emotional blackmail you concede my point that the promotion of racial discrimination is inherent in this Bill.

No person, let alone a child, deserves the horrible end they did in Arizona. By yet again, the gun 'rights' people try to deflect the issue to saying 'alright, we'll stop people who might appear unstable at the time..."

What about those that seem perfectly sane... then shoot a child?

Until people are serious about the prevalence and threat of weapons in the community, as well as living in the real world where responsibilities are just as important as rights, we can't have a reasonable debate on this.

I'm happy to see a Bill which addresses overall available of handguns, especially semi-automatic handguns... measure like this are a band-aid over a gaping hole.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Cars and knifes have other purposes besides killing or maiming... guns don't.

Alright, take the racial discrimination element out...

There's the other issue... what about a person who appears perfectly calm... but is as unstable as the Arizona shooter... then goes and kills innocent people?

So what this Bill does, it relies on the gun seller, to know that a person is unstable, at the time of the gun sale. It does nothing to make the requirements to obtain a gun more thorough, and potentially weed out people who potentially unstable in general, not just at the time of the sale.

So it's fun to let those people carry on?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Apologies - debate period has ended.


We will now move  to vote on this Bill.

Please vote Aye or Nay... this period will last 24 hours.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Nay

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Period for voting has ended.

Ayes: 3
Nays: 2
Abstentions: 1

The Bill passes.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I move that we consider Rep Sbane's Bill

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All in favour say 'aye', the ayes have it.

Rep Sbane please speak to your Bill, the period for debate will last until 48 hours from now.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I have no problem with taking public intoxication off the books, if the person becomes more aggressive there are specific offenses to handle that.

I'm somewhat hesitant to completely remove restrictions on carrying open containers of alcohol.

Where it is still in place, the laws regarding public drinking also have an element of public safety outside simply a person getting drunk and causing a fight... since most alcoholic drinks come in glass containers, it also to limit injuries from broken glass.
 
So I'm happy to support the public drunkenness element, but I believe there are still good reasons to limit containers of alcohol in public.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

-- Suspension of Assembly business--

Following the completion of the Debate time for the Bill currently before the Assembly, I  move that we convene an emergency session to compose a resolution condemning the terrorist attack in Nyman.