Senate Legislation Introduction Thread

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Section 2 has already been done.

Section 3 is probably unconstitutional on free speech grounds.

I seem to remember automatic background checks being placed on TSDB suspects, but I don't recall anything about a ban on firearm purchases for suspects, which is what this bill establishes.

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

SENATE BILL[/b]

To implement common sense gun control in Atlasia

Be it enacted by the Congress of the Republic of Atlasia assembled

SECTION 1: TITLE
1. This law shall be referred to as the Common Sense Gun Control Act.

SECTION II: BAN ON NO FLY LIST GUN PURCHASES
1. Suspects on the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) shall be prohibited from purchasing firearms.

SECTION III: BAN ON 3D-PRINTED FIREARMS
1. Publishing an online digital file which programs a 3D-printer to automatically print a firearm shall be prohibited.
2. The publication of blueprints for 3D-printed firearms shall be prohibited.

Section 2 has already been done.

Section 3 is probably unconstitutional on free speech grounds.

I seem to remember automatic background checks being placed on TSDB suspects, but I don't recall anything about a ban on firearm purchases for suspects, which is what this bill establishes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

SENATE BILL[/b][/center]

To reduce gun violence
Be it enacted by the Congress of the Republic of Atlasia assembled

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Well in that case, I guess the bill will just have to be amended to remove Section 2 and replace it with something else, possibly an assault weapons ban. Also, it seems like a stretch to call Section 3 unconstitutional, as those very same measures are being discussed in the US government right now by politicians such as Senator Bill Nelson. Also, something evidently got messed up in the quote formatting with this post.

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

Also, it seems like a stretch to call Section 3 unconstitutional, as those very same measures are being discussed in the US government right now by politicians such as Senator Bill Nelson.

You've never known Republicans to push blatantly unconstitutional laws? In the past 20 yrs weve seen a great change in how broadly we understand freedom of sppech. Congress does not have the power to ban speech unless the speech is part of a historical exclusion. If the ban discriminates on content (like the above proposal) it is of especially dubious constitutionality. If the ban acts as a prior restraint on speech it is even more likely to be struck down. And if the ban doesnt provide for alternative channels of speech that is also unconstitutional.

Recently the Supreme Court has had to strike down unconstitutional laws banning lying about winning military awards, videos of women in high heels crushing animals, violent video games sold to minors, for sale signs, phone sex hotlines, T Shirts, violent rap lyrics on facebook about your ex, and a host of other unpopular speech.

It goes further. Lower federal courts have recently held nonconsensual upskirt photography, tattoo parlors, panhandling, drive in movie theaters viewable from the road, anonymous notes left on cars, social media profiles, and a lot of other things that arent vocally spoken as protected speech.

This proposal purports to just straight up ban the communicative publishing of truthful information based on the content of the speech, even though said content is not one of the narrow few historical exclusions. This acts like a prior restraint which is even more suspect that if this was JUST content discrimination AND a non-allowable, non-historical exclusion. There are no adequate alternative channel provided for firearm blueprints as required by the Ladue case.

Like I get that you might want to do something on a topical issue, but as written I believe this violates free speech for 4 separate reasons, any one of which is constitutionally fatal.

Well, I suppose then that the bill could be amended into something similar to the Undetectable Firearms Act. This would fix the main problem with 3D printed firearms, that many of them are untraceable and undetectable by metal detectors. The software, if considered speech protected by the 1st Amendment, would still be available, but the guns themselves would be required to contain a certain amount of metal.

But the problem of the guns being able to be printed by anyone would still exist, and I don't see how the government could place background checks on them. By dangerously skirting gun control laws and regulations, these firearms could conceivably end up in the hands of anyone. Perhaps some ideas for how to regulate these guns could be brought up in debate once this bill reaches the Senate floor.

Maybe the software blueprint instructions could be available to anyone, but you would have to have a permit/license requiring background checks, either one already in existence for other firearms or a new one specific to just 3D guns, from the government to actually use the software to print a gun. Carrying a gun, 3D printed or not, without a permit would be a crime.

Or perhaps after printing a gun, the gun would be required to be registered with the government, assuming that a national gun registry exists in Atlasia. Or if one doesn't exist, perhaps this bill could mandate the creation of one. Carrying an unlicensed gun, whether 3D printed or not, would be a crime.

Anyway, any more discussion about this should probably be saved for the Senate floor when the bill actually gets introduced.

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

Anyway, any more discussion about this should probably be saved for the Senate floor when the bill actually gets introduced.

It needs to be constitutional first so it can go to the floor.

 You might could amend it here to mandate serial numbers on them once printed if they get the code over the internet since thats interstate. The other thing is, 3D printed "guns" still require a metal firing pin to work, which means they satisfy the current requirements under the undetectable firearms act.

The bill has been modified.

[1978 New Wave skinny trousers]

You must be logged in to read this quote.