SENATE BILL: Omnibus Gun Policy & Safety Act (Law'd)

[Sbane]

Nay

[Marokai Backbeat]

Nay.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Abstain for now.

It would be an interesting court case to have.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

It'll be interesting because of the justices we have, but it really shouldn't be. The Constitution is so exceptionally clear when it says that a person's right to keep fire-arms must not be infringed. I don't see how you'd be able to make the opposite argument on this one.

[afleitch]

An interesting bill and I'll wait until the final version is up for a vote before I pick through it. May be worth reminding Senators that perhaps the most effective way to implement gun control is to amend the Constitution. Depends on how amiable the voters are.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Amendment 51:17:

Aye (1): Hagrid
Nay (4): Ben, Franzl, Marokai Blue, and sbane
Abstain (2): NC Yankee and Scott

Didn't Vote (3): Bacon King, NVTownsend and Redalgo

The amendment has failed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Where are we at here?

[Marokai Backbeat]

I propose a simple motion to strike clauses 3 and 4 from Section 2, allowing concealed carry to be left entirely up to the regions.

Which, hopefully, generates some goodwill from people here.

[Frodo]

Section 2: Gun Ownership Procedure.

1. All newly sold handguns, and individuals who purchase them, after the implementation of this Act, must be noted in a hereby established National Handgun Registry available to law enforcement officials.

2. One (1) billion dollars is hereby appropriated for a program to give individuals one-hundred (100) dollar incentives for entering their existing handguns into the National Handgun Registry.

Canada had a gun registry up until relatively recently -how effective was it in terms of reducing crime?  

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I think leaving it to the regions is a better idea.

Canada had a gun registry up until relatively recently -how effective was it in terms of reducing crime?  

Its actual role in reducing crime was pretty contentious, as far as I know. The commisioner of the Ontario Provincial Police circa 2002 stated that the registry didn't seem to be much of a deterrent. A 2010 survey also found that 72% of Canadians thought it made no difference in preventing crime. Many police associations across Canada held their own votes on the registry, and the results widely varied from region to region.

I know I'm not really pointing to actual data, but it's tough to gauge correlation between crimes and the one-time event of the registry's initial passage. There were no provisions in the Firearms Act to actually study the effects of the registry on crime rates. And the thing is... it was quite possible for a person to get a gun and avoid the registry if he or she really wanted to. The people registering their guns were likely to follow the law.

Mostly, the registry helped police officers stay safe. If they were called to a home because of some sort of domestic disturbance, they'd be able to know if guns were in-play and act accordingly.

On the flip-side, there were always concerns about privacy. And, of course, the costs of operating this program were substantially bigger than the government thought they would be.

[Frodo]

Section 2: Gun Sale Restrictions.

1. The following individuals shall be prohibited from possessing, transporting, or selling firearms:
a. Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
b. Is a fugitive from justice,
c. Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.
d. Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution.
e. Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States.
f. Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
g. Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship.
h. Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, or.
i. Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
j. Has a record of being a felon.

2. Semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines, possessing at least two of the following, are hereby prohibited from possession, transportation, and sale:
a. Folding or telescoping stock.
b. Pistol grip.
c. Bayonet mount.
d. Flash suppressor.
e. Devices enabling the launching of grenades.

3. Semi-automatic handguns, with detachable magazines, possessing at least two of the following, are hereby prohibited from possession, transportation, and sale:
a. Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
b. Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
c. Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
d. A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

4. Semi-automatic shotguns, possessing at least two of the following, are hereby prohibited from possession, transportation, and sale:
a. Folding or telescoping stock
b. Pistol grip
c. Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
d. Detachable magazine.

5. Newly manufactured handgun and rifle ammunition magazines may not exceed eighteen bullets, while handgun and rifle ammunition magazines containing over thirty bullets shall be immediately illegal for possession, transportation, or sale.

6. No individual, who does not own a business involved in the sale of firearms, or operate gun shows, may purchase more than two firearms within a thirty (30) day period.

7. All newly manufactured packs of ammunition and firearms must be laser-engraved with a unique serial number during the manufacturing process to aid in the process of law enforcement.

8. Prior to gun sale, the customer must be subject to, and pass, a background check conducted by state and local government.

Is there any particular reason why we can't have the entirety of Section 2 (or is this meant to be Section 3?) left to the regions to decide as they see fit?  

[Redalgo]

Alright, so now that I unambiguously understand I am still a Senator and did not get replaced, I’ll begin by saying this bill is full of things I am unwilling to vote for. The Protection of the Right to Bear Arms Act seems like a good law to me - one I would not vote to repeal. Section 2 and the eighth clause of Section 3 are great but should probably be implemented at the regional level of government. Clauses one through seven of the third section are disagreeable for me due to their contents instead of federalist concerns.

I may or may not get around to posting an amendment of my own design. At any rate, it is not at all in the best interests of Midwesterners (or Atlasians in general, for that matter) for this body to so markedly restrict or encase in red tape their right to bear arms. Don’t get me wrong, having at least of a handful of regulations on the matter makes sense, but this bill isn’t what I have in mind.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Since the SoIA already asked in another thread, I suppose it's worth bringing it up - why aren't non-citizens allowed to have guns?  As long as they're law-abiding and have gone through the appropriate background checks, I don't really see the harm in allowing all people to have guns... but maybe I'm seeing this the wrong way.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I love doing this to the point that it's becoming a trick of mine of sorts. I greatly enjoy proposing things that do or have already existed in the past, in the real world, that was at one time relatively uncontroversial, and yet here are reacted to as if they are unprecedented and scandalous overreaches. Section 2 almost entirely (with the exception of a couple of items at the end of it) comes from the expired Assault Weapons Ban or Brady Bill.

I remain completely unconvinced that we should leave gun law almost entirely to the regions. That is preposterous to me. You want to leave abstinence funding to the regions? Whatever, fine, but we're talking about gun laws and as they relate to law enforcement, and there is no excuse that I can buy into that would say they shouldn't be uniform across the country. One region should laser engrave bullets to assist law enforcement, but another shouldn't? Why? I can get down with soft regionalism, but this logic is something that, to it's logical extension, leads to nearly nothing being national policy.

Section 2 does not "markedly restrict" gun ownership, either. That is an obscene exaggeration. It restricts a handful of specific kinds of modified weaponry, the kind of weaponry that you only need if you're building a militia group or are funding a SWAT team. Background checks should be uniform, laser engravings should be uniform, ammunition clip size restrictions should be uniform, because if they're not, you end up in a situation where gun manufacturers congregate to a particular region to abuse regulatory loopholes and avoid responsibility, the same way other businesses do when there are five different regulatory policies in this country; they pick what's advantageous to them and it completely invalidates anything "regionalism" tries to accomplish.

In the interests of good policy you either support something outright or you don't, but this limbo will he-won't he that some people here are playing are bizarre. Have the courage of your convictions to be consistent in your positions. I hate having to thread the needle for some people here.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I didn't see any objections, so I guess the amendment passed. Of course sight isn't a quality commodity anymore for lack of sleep.

[Redalgo]

Alright, I’ll put it another way that doesn’t make it sound as though I’m hiding behind regionalism.

I do not believe it should be a crime for any person within Atlasia to possess, transport, or sell firearms provided they are properly licensed to do so and, relative to what you call for in your legislation, there are fewer groups of people I would automatically forbid from obtaining such licensing. I am okay with citizens procuring automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons, big magazines, lots of modifications, and even buying several firearms over the course of a month.

To be fair, upon rereading the legislation your proposal concerning laser-engraving struck me as being very reasonable. Furthermore, I think background checks are a must - as should be classes and exams concerning gun safety to receive licensing that needs to be renewed every few years. Even better, have the depth of background checks, rigor of the courses, and difficulty of exams become more intense for those who wish to obtain special licensing for deadlier weaponry (e.g. buying the sorts of firearms and modifications the legislation’s present wording would ban).

In the past I’ve shown interest in requiring all firearm, modification, and ammunition sales be reported to the government but am no longer sure of whether in practice it would be a good idea.

[Napoleon]

In the past I’ve shown interest in requiring all firearm, modification, and ammunition sales be reported to the government but am no longer sure of whether in practice it would be a good idea.

We do this for automobiles.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So are there any more changes desire here or are we pretty much done?

[Frodo]

So are there any more changes desire here or are we pretty much done?

If you are including non-senators, I have a technical suggestion: rename 'Section 2: Gun Sale Restrictions' to 'Section 3: Gun Sale Restrictions'.  I am not expecting controversy...  

Also, do we really want to follow the Canadian example in having a national gun registry?  They got rid of it for a reason.  So unless Senator Marokai wishes to show how we can improve on their experience, I suggest a senator propose an amendment gutting this provision.  

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Fixed the numbering error and scrapped the registry. I agree with Frodo on this one. Marokai can indicate his unfriendliness to the amendment if he wants, and if he does, I'd be happy to see the amendment put to a vote.

An Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I object to the amendment.

Canada scrapped their registry because the Conservative Party pretended they were only opposed to portions of it and then when they received a majority they rammed through complete repeal of the registry on the strength of said majority. Pretending it was done by Serious People sitting in rooms deliberating over the empirical effectiveness of it is ridic.

It's also much different from what is proposed here, which is a basic Handgun registry only, not a catch-all gun registry. We can keep watering down, watering down, until this gun law is completely useless, or we can pass a basic system of gun records so we can actually protect and assist law enforcement and keep track of the most numerous type of guns. I see nothing wrong with passing a basic handgun registry and don't understand, frankly, what people are upset about at all. It is harmless.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Damn it,just f'ed up the OP by hitting modify instead of quote and not realizing it untill it was too late.


Last night, when I was on this thread, the site crashed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.