Protection of the Right to Bear Arms Bill

[Emsworth]

Protection of the Right to Bear Arms Bill

Section 1: Ownership of Firearms and Low-Potency Explosives
1. Any federal law prohibiting a category of persons from owning  firearms or low-potency explosives is hereby repealed, except as provided by clause 2 of this section.

2. A court of law may punish an individual convicted of a felony under federal law by suspending his right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives for a period of years, or for life.

Section 2: Liability
1. The manufacturer or seller of firearms or low-potency explosives shall not be held liable for death, physical injury, or property damage resulting from the use of said firearms or low-potency explosives.

2. Clause 1 of this section shall not apply where:

(a) Death, physical injury, or property damage is the direct result of a defect in the design or manufacture of the product;
(b) The seller negligently supplies the product to a person whom he knows, or reasonably should know, is likely to use said product in an unlawful manner involving unreasonable risk to others;
(c) The manufacturer or seller is an accessory to, or is otherwise unlawfully involved in, the relevant crime.

Section 3: Concealed Carry
1. This section shall only apply in the District of Columbia and in federal territories that do not form part of any Region.

2. Any citizen of Atlasia who has completed a safety course on gun use approved by the Department of Justice may apply for a license to conceal and carry a handgun on his person in public areas. The license shall be inoperative unless renewed every five years.

3. A license to conceal and carry a handgun issued by a Region to one of its citizens shall be valid in the District of Columbia and in federal territories, if the Region requires the licensee to complete a course on gun safety approved by the Department of Justice.

4. A license to conceal and carry a handgun issued to a person convicted of a felony under federal or regional law during the past five years, or to any person whose right to bear firearms and low-potency explosives has been suspended under section 1 of this act, shall be invalid.

5. The fee for the issuance or renewal of a license to conceal and carry a handgun shall be $50.

6. The concealed carry of handguns may be disallowed in government-owned buildings, including but not limited to prisons and court houses.

7. An individual may disallow the concealed carry of firearms on his own property.
Sponsor: Sen. MasterJedi

[Ebowed]

I will support this bill.

[Gabu]

This all sounds good to me... I especially like section 2, as I feel that we could really do without a massive amount of lawsuits against manufacturers who are not really at fault at all.

[Bono]

(b) The seller negligently supplies the product to a person whom he knows, or reasonably should know, is likely to use said product in an unlawful manner involving unreasonable risk to others;

This is ripe for abuse.

[Gabu]

(b) The seller negligently supplies the product to a person whom he knows, or reasonably should know, is likely to use said product in an unlawful manner involving unreasonable risk to others;

This is ripe for abuse.

Why is that?  It seems to me that all that's saying is that sellers should do a background check before selling someone a gun.

[Platypus]

I urge both my senators to vote against this bill, although I know you won't

[Gabu]

I urge both my senators to vote against this bill, although I know you won't

If you have concerns to voice, I would be happy to listen to them, although I can't guarantee that I will agree.

[Platypus]

Section 1-does this interere with regional gun laws? If so, would regions be able to pass a law in the future banning gun ownership?

Section 2-This can ONLY come into effect, imho, if the gun industry is banned from ALL advertisement-think cigarette companies. NO sponsorships, NO merchandising, NO print or television ads. As long as the product is being promoted, especially weapons promoted with suggestions of killing capacity, then manufacturers of firearms, bulletts, etc. should and ust be liable.

I don't support gun industry protection full stop, but I believe that is a fair concession.

Section 3: Whilst I do not support this section, And urge that it isn't passed, it is not as important to me as the first two sections.

[Ebowed]

I believe Section 1A just repeals any old laws restricting gun/low potency explosive ownership, assuming we had any.

Section 2: Why would be ban the gun industry of its right to advertisement?  Assuming we have any laws that ban cigarette companies from advertising, I support repealing them.  Either way, it is not the fault of the manufacturers of firearms or bullets if they are used to kill-- you can also use a knife to kill someone, but nobody attempts to sue manufacturers of knives (AFAIK).

[Platypus]

I'm especially concerned about advertisements that relate to killing capacity.

And the knives argument is a bloody stawman, and you know it. Guns are good for shooting live people or animals or whatever; there is nothing that could ever be essential about them. Knives not only can be essential, but aren't designed to kill-although they do have that ability, sure. The problems with the knife argument are many, but just two basic ones: 1. Knives can't kill you from 200m away. 2. Knives aren't designed to kill.

[Bono]

(b) The seller negligently supplies the product to a person whom he knows, or reasonably should know, is likely to use said product in an unlawful manner involving unreasonable risk to others;

This is ripe for abuse.

Why is that?  It seems to me that all that's saying is that sellers should do a background check before selling someone a gun.

If the reasonably should know is striken, there is no problem, but while it remains there, if I sell you a gun, how am I "reasonably" suposed to know if you are going to use it unlawfully or not?
If precedent is right, this is just going to be defined by administrative ruling, and we all know what Al Quaeda BATF's standards are.

[Ebowed]

There is plenty that can be essential about guns.  For example, the right to hunt an animal species that is not threatened, endangered, or living in a protected habitat, which I hope you don't advocate restricting.  And of course there is the self-defense issue.  There are also knives designed to kill, although it is true most of them are not: however, would you impose invasive restrictions on the knife industry to prevent the most lethal from being available, and if so, why not take the same position on guns, rather than favor banning them for most people outright?

[Platypus]

your questioning of 'reasonably' presents huge legal issues, Bono, most specifically relating to "Beyond Reasonable Doubt". What do you feel about that? (actually, this thread might not be the best place for that. Maybe Pol. Debate?)

Ebowed-that's not essential, you can cull with bloody spears for gods sake.

Self defence with guns is only an issue if the other person has a gun. Whilst I know America is so riddled with t-o-d, i dont think the cycle should be perpetuated.

and 'lethal' knives have uses beyond killing-maybe not swords, but machetes, cutting knives, etc. They should be banned outside of private property, but ownership should be allowed.

[Ebowed]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But you can also kill a human with a spear.  Why ban guns and encourage spears for hunting when you can also kill people with them?

[Platypus]

i'm not encouraging them, im just saying guns aren't essential.

[Ebowed]

They're more effective than spears, wouldn't you agree?

[Emsworth]

Section 1-does this interere with regional gun laws? If so, would regions be able to pass a law in the future banning gun ownership?

It does not interfere with regional law; in fact, it explictly refers only to "federal law." Regions are free to legislate as they please, within the bounds of the Constitution and their own constitutions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Bill of Rights would be violated if this were imposed by the government. There is a right to free speech.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the reasonably should know is striken, there is no problem, but while it remains there, if I sell you a gun, how am I "reasonably" suposed to know if you are going to use it unlawfully or not?

That's a standard legal phrase. "Beyond reasonable doubt," "reasonable person," "reasonably should know" are all accepted terms.

One example would be giving a gun to an infant, whom you should reasonably know would not use the gun in a proper manner.

[MasterJedi]

Since I introduced this for Emsworth I obviously support this.

And to Hugh, anything in the right hands can be used as a weapon to kill. Hell you can even get animals (non-carnivorous) to kill people.

[Colin]

I am fully in favour of this proposal and will probably vote in the affirmative.

[Jake]

Um, Hugh. Culture is a bit different here than "down-under". Your gun grabbing crap is absolutely hilarious, especially your opposition to population control. I know you don't understand that hunting is the main population control for deer in Pennsylvania. If people were barred from hunting, the deer would terribly hurt the farming industry in PA and the situation would be a mess. For the second time in half an hour, I urge you the shut it about things you don't understand.

[Emsworth]

There has been no debate for over 24 hours. Accordingly:

The question is on final passage of the bill. All those in favor, say Aye; those opposed, say No.

[MasterJedi]

Aye

[Ebowed]

Aye.

[Colin]

Aye

[Defarge]

I still see no reason to make concealed carrying legal.  However, as the period of debate has passed, and as the guidelines for licensing appear strict enough, I vote aye.