Northeast Assembly Thread

[homelycooking]

Can we get back down to business, please?

[Napoleon]

Additional Amendments to the Northeast Gun Safety Act

The Northeast Gun Safety Act shall be re-amended to read:

1. Any person who has committed a non-murder felony while under the age of 21, will automatically have his rights restored at age 35.
     a. Except in cases where the victim of the offender's crime is a minor.
     b. Except in cases where the offender has committed two or more felonies during this period.
2. Whenever a gun is used as an instrument in the crime, an additional five years will be added to the sentence.
     a. In cases of abduction, rape, or murder of any degree, in which a gun is used as an instrument in the crime, these rights will not be restored.

48 hours for debate.

[homelycooking]

Would a felon to which either 1a or 1b apply ever receive restoration of his rights? And what "rights" do the amendments (either of them) refer to?

What counts as "instrument in a crime"? Does the gun have to be fired for this to apply?

[Lambsbread]

So section 2 basically says that a person will have rights restored at age 40, right?

[Napoleon]

So section 2 basically says that a person will have rights restored at age 40, right?

No...

Would a felon to which either 1a or 1b apply ever receive restoration of his rights? And what "rights" do the amendments (either of them) refer to?

What counts as "instrument in a crime"? Does the gun have to be fired for this to apply?

It seems pretty clear to me, this is largely the existing text. The rights referred to are obviously gun rights as provided by the Constitution. A gun does not have to be fired to be a criminal instrument.

[Lambsbread]

Oh oh oh, I read it wrong. My bad.

[homelycooking]

Would a felon to which either 1a or 1b apply ever receive restoration of his rights? And what "rights" do the amendments (either of them) refer to?

What counts as "instrument in a crime"? Does the gun have to be fired for this to apply?

It seems pretty clear to me, this is largely the existing text. The rights referred to are obviously gun rights as provided by the Constitution. A gun does not have to be fired to be a criminal instrument.

The bill/amendment should specify which "rights" are restored. As far as I'm concerned, "obvious" is not good enough - it should be explicit. Part one also could be improved by saying "Any person...will automatically have his right to bear arms restored at age 35 or at the end of his criminal sentence, whichever comes later."

2a seems like it infringes upon the independence of the judiciary. I don't think it's right for the legislature to mandate that in all cases in which a gun is used in a crime, regardless of whether it is used to intimidate but never fired or fired dozens of times, exactly five years must be added to a criminal's sentence.

I'd like to request an additional 24 hours for debate.

[Napoleon]

Your issue seems to be with the law as currently in place, perhaps that should be done separately from these minor changes?

Either way, 24 more hours. It is rather disappointing this hadn't already been taken care of.

[homelycooking]

Your issue seems to be with the law as currently in place, perhaps that should be done separately from these minor changes?

Either way, 24 more hours. It is rather disappointing this hadn't already been taken care of.

Well, you're right. I suppose I can support these amendments, but I do want to revise the language of the original amendment upon which this bill was based.

[Marokai Backbeat]

We arbitrarily punish people more just because they use a gun in their crime? What exactly is the justification of that? Is that how things really work in relation to gun crime?

Homelycooking also has a great point regarding the judiciary. I don't think it's really our place to just randomly add a one-size-fits-all punishment on top of the usual punishment just because there was a fun involved.

Heaven knows I'm not a gun nut or anything but I'm really not comfortable with Section 2 at all. Someone please convince me. Otherwise I'm fine with this. (And considering, after checking the statute, that sort of thing is actual law, I'm tempted to introduce a repeal of that altogether.)

[Cincinnatus]

We arbitrarily punish people more just because they use a gun in their crime? What exactly is the justification of that? Is that how things really work in relation to gun crime?

Well, the use of a gun in a crime can be seen as justification.  The language "instrument of crime" is what deserves attention.  Non-specific language like that can leave to much room for interpretation.

Also, if section 1 mentions non-murder felony, and section 2 talks about a gun being used as an "instrument of crime", can't this be contradictory if in fact, the felon had a gun during the crime, but the crime was not murder?

[Napoleon]

We arbitrarily punish people more just because they use a gun in their crime? What exactly is the justification of that? Is that how things really work in relation to gun crime?

Well, the use of a gun in a crime can be seen as justification.  The language "instrument of crime" is what deserves attention.  Non-specific language like that can leave to much room for interpretation.

Also, if section 1 mentions non-murder felony, and section 2 talks about a gun being used as an "instrument of crime", can't this be contradictory if in fact, the felon had a gun during the crime, but the crime was not murder?

Keyword would be the, indicating prior text as the antecedent.

[Marokai Backbeat]

*whistles to myself*

Our supposedly very efficient worker for the NE hasn't posted in 2+ days and said this debate on this issue should've been over like five days ago. Shouldn't we be voting, or, you know, anything? I keep checking back here for something and it's been a little too quiet. "Not responsible for activity" indeed.


As for myself, I will personally vote against this amendment to the gun laws, as I don't believe that we should start arbitrarily setting up extra punishments essentially "just because" a certain weapon is involved in a crime. How about we add 2 extra years for knives? Or an extra six months if it's a "blunt instrument"? (Also, as Cinn points out, "instrument in a crime" is incredibly vague, since it doesn't technically mean just the murder weapon. It could literally just mean hitting someone with a gun, or maybe even just having a gun on you at the time.)

The punishment for the crime and the assessment of the severity of the crime is left up to the courts and I think we should leave it that way. Voting against this particular set of changes won't be what puts an end to that, but hopefully my repeal that I introduced days ago will. So.. whenever.. you know, we get moving again..

[Lambsbread]

I'm with Marokai.

I vote Nay.

It seems superfluous to over make an already complex legal system even more intricate.

[Napoleon]

I'm with Marokai.

I vote Nay.

It seems superfluous to over make an already complex legal system even more intricate.

I'm going to wait for homelycooking since he requested extra time.

[homelycooking]

Nay. The amendments have the right ideas in mind, but the bill that they seek to amend is critically flawed.

[Napoleon]

Nay. The amendments have the right ideas in mind, but the bill that they seek to amend is critically flawed.

We aren't voting yet. In fact, I was waiting for you.

[homelycooking]

Oh! Sorry. Well, let's proceed to a vote, then.

[Free Palestine]

Me?  Nominated for Lieutenant Governor?  Wat.

[Lambsbread]

I'm with Marokai.

I vote Nay.

It seems superfluous to make an already complex legal system even more intricate.

Since voting is now opened.

[Cincinnatus]

I'm with Marokai.

I vote Nay.

It seems superfluous to make an already complex legal system even more intricate.

Since voting is now opened.

It's not opened yet.  Once Napoleon sees that debate has halted and HC is ready, I'm sure he'll call a vote.   

[Napoleon]

Oh! Sorry. Well, let's proceed to a vote, then.

Okay, I thought you were offering changes. We still wont have a vote until later tonight because I intend on making this passable. If anyone else wants to offer something constructive rather than cheap attacks, I'd welcome that. The status quo isn't the answer if you don't like the bill as it stands; I prefer accomplishing what needs to be done even if I don't like the sponsor of the law.

[Cincinnatus]

I can't speak for the others, but I think that in general, section two is unpopular.  Also, what about fixing the "rights restored"  in section 1, and having it read something like;

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Oh! Sorry. Well, let's proceed to a vote, then.

Okay, I thought you were offering changes. We still wont have a vote until later tonight because I intend on making this passable. If anyone else wants to offer something constructive rather than cheap attacks, I'd welcome that. The status quo isn't the answer if you don't like the bill as it stands; I prefer accomplishing what needs to be done even if I don't like the sponsor of the law.

People have been making perfectly reasonable complaints about this law. You may not like having your proposals criticized, but not everything negative said about something you like is a "cheap attack."

I'm willing to vote for this proposal if the additional punishment for a gun being part of a crime is removed from law.

[Cincinnatus]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In his defense, there have been some less than cordial remarks that can be seen as a "cheap attack."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Section 2 is the bulk of Napoleons proposal I believe but, I am not in favor of it either.