SENATE BILL: Firearms Act of 2013 (Law'd)

[Donerail]

For every Adam Lanza there is a Chris Dorner.

And for every Chris Dorner there is a Donald Moore, or a Kenneth Hammond, or an Antonio Milow. I believe that carry has stopped several mass shootings in the past and will do so in the future and fully support the right of our citizens to bear arms, but since this has already gone from 'no citizens carrying at any time' to 'only law enforcement/military can carry on federal property'... It's compromise.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Amendment 54:11 by Averroës Nix:

Aye (6): Averroës Nix, Ben, Franzl, jdb, NC Yankee and Snowstalker
Nay (2): HagridoftheDeep and Napoleon
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (1): Oakvale
Vacant Seats (1): Spamage

The amendment has been adopted.

[Ban my account ffs!]

While I applaud Nix's work on this bill and I understand his skepticism of owning guns for "fun" or for supposed personal protection, the bill as it stands is much too strict.

Nobody with a misdemeanor crime should be barred from owning guns.  And I do not think keeping a national registry of gun owners available to law enforcement is a good idea. 

You are basically creating a heap of red tape in hopes that it'll deter a criminal from carrying out criminal actions with a gun.  But for them, the black market will provide just as well.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Also keep in mind that simple legislative actions like the removal of lead from gasoline has done more to reduce crime rates than any action we've taken on gun control.

Let's get at the basis for why crimes are committed and focus on improving quality of life for the impoverished wherein a life of crime is not a viable career.

[DemPGH]

If we're going to have concealed and carry, which politically I do not support (of course, I have to look at legality, not politics), then legally my concerns have been put to rest with the restrictions outlined here, and I very much like the part about negligence. I also like the stipulation that an owner of a gun is liable for damages that he or she inflicts and is liable if the gun is used by someone else only if there is gross negligence found. Again, if we're going to have concealed and carry, I'm not going to fight about those stipulations. So, from my perspective I'll see what Marokai thinks, but I'm more or less good.

[Donerail]

If we're amending the previous legislation, I have never heard any kind of coherent argument for Clauses 2-4 of Section 3.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendment has been adopted.

Any last minute concerns here?

[Napoleon]

I offer an amendment to strike Section 5 entirely.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I strongly support the unamended bill.  I would still support an amended version, but striking section 5 entirely would needlessly weaken an excellent piece of legislation.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I would support Napoleon's suggested amendment, but I still would not support the bill.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: The above amendent is now at vote, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Nay

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Aye

[Oakvale]

By urgent PM, I'm here.


[Consider my leave of absence temporarily finished]

Nay.

[Consider my leave of absence restarted]

[Franzl]

NAY

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I really don't see why people think Section 5 is necessary here. Or why it was so urgent to have Oakvale come in and vote to protect the section. If the scope of Section 5 is only limited to federal property, what's the point? It seems like a rather unnecessary hindrance for the public. They can take their concealed weapons to the bank but not to the SSN licensing office? They can take their guns to a hotel but not to a national park, where the only thing protecting their families from danger is a canvas tent? It's just a stupid provision. Why discriminate between federal and public property? I mean... I the current Section 5 is better than the old one, but why do we have to have such a specific, arbitrary regulation?

Moreover, where it's actually important to not have guns (say, on a tour of the White House), there are already security protocols in place that will make sure the guns aren't allowed.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Honestly, I don't understand the justification behind allowing anyone other than a permitted hunter to carry a firearm in a national park. And I'm not about to allow people to carry weapons into government offices just because not doing so is inconvenient.

Well, you don't understand it because you don't support concealed carry anywhere. But if you accept the premise that it's about defending oneself, wouldn't the need for self-defense actually be higher (or at least more justified) when you're sleeping in a shelter that has no locks? Like a tent in a national park?

I know this scenario is kind of an obscure thing to harp on, but I really think it illustrates why Section 5 is such an arbitrary and unnecessary regulation. And forget the jurisdictional boundaries—what's the real difference between carrying a gun into a government office and carrying a gun into a private one?

The way I see it, if you're accepting enough of the premise of this compromise to include it in the bill, why stop short at such an impractical and unnecessary point? I seems like you're trying to hold onto some symbolic territory just so it can be called a compromise. Except it only really overcomplicates things.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes, Nix, we get it. It is something we can do. Why does that preclude us from deliberating whether or not we should?

Is there any truth to talking point that the Aurora shooter purposely avoided the largest theater and the one closest to his house, picking one smaller and futher away, that just so happened to be the only one in town that was a "Gun Free Zone"? I am not too trusting of the source from which I got that information. 

The general purpose behind concealed carry is for self-defense purposes. I have grown very dubious about the theory behind openly stated "Gun Free Zones", and if wondering whether or not someone else has a gun and might shoot back deters a serial killer from starking campers (who might just be children), I am inclined to at least consider the possibility.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I must admit I've never understood this argument in relation to gun policy. "This is a very limited proposal that will only prevent a small amount of incidents, why do it at all?!" Because it's a limited and respectful proposal that prevents a small amount of incidents rather than none, guys. That's why.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I must admit I've never understood this argument in relation to gun policy. "This is a very limited proposal that will only prevent a small amount of incidents, why do it at all?!" Because it's a limited and respectful proposal that prevents a small amount of incidents rather than none, guys. That's why.

This is an attempt at snipping off the very tip of a weed when we need to grab and pull it out by the roots. All the attention is on mass shootings, yet those consist of less than 1% of gun murders. To really stop violent crime we need a renewed War on Poverty.

[Napoleon]

I must admit I've never understood this argument in relation to gun policy. "This is a very limited proposal that will only prevent a small amount of incidents, why do it at all?!" Because it's a limited and respectful proposal that prevents a small amount of incidents rather than none, guys. That's why.

This is an attempt at snipping off the very tip of a weed when we need to grab and pull it out by the roots. All the attention is on mass shootings, yet those consist of less than 1% of gun murders. To really stop violent crime we need a renewed War on Poverty.

Exactly! I suspect our liberal drug laws have worked toward reducing crime in Atlasia.  And another big step would be to reduce racism and other problems related to law enforcement so they can gain the respect of their communities instead of an antagonistic relationship.