|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 03, 2020, 12:19:17 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Regional Governments (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  L10.4.1 Lincoln Gun Control Act of 2018
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: L10.4.1 Lincoln Gun Control Act of 2018  (Read 2054 times)
Ninja0428
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,947
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.39, S: -8.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 27, 2018, 07:55:51 am »
« edited: May 14, 2018, 10:03:25 am by Representative Ninja0428 »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Author/Sponsor: 1184AZ

I open the floor for debate. The sponsor has 36 hours to argue in favor of this bill.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,685
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2018, 11:56:14 am »
« Edited: February 27, 2018, 01:21:14 pm by Mr. Reactionary »

Implementing new gun control measures in the wake of increasing gun violence in both Lincoln and Atlasia at large
Lincoln Gun Control Act of 2018
Section 1: Prohibited Firearms
1. The following devices shall also be considered prohibited to operate, purchase, sell, or possess by private citizens:
-Suppressors
-Bump Stocks
2. The Following Firearms are prohibited to operate, purchase, sell or possess by private citizens:
-Any firearm that is equipped with a mechanism that, following the discharge of a cartridge, automatically operates to complete any part of the reloading cycle necessary to prepare for the discharge of the next cartridge with a magazine capable of holding 10 or more rounds of ammunition.
-Any other handgun that does not fit the above description with a magazine that can hold 10 or more rounds of ammunition.
-Any rifle with a magazine that can hold 5 or more rounds of ammunition.

3.Any individual that possess, uses, sells or purchases any of the above prohibited weapons or devices may face a fine not exceeding $100,000 and jail sentence not exceeding 3 years.

LOL. So basically, only old timey revolvers and some pump shotguns are allowed?

This bans all hunting rifles, including .22s. You know bolt action rifles can have magazines and that if it is hypothetically possible to have a magazine with 4 rounds it is hypothetically possible to have a magazine with a bajillion rounds. A springloaded box is a springloaded box. So yeah, any rifle or handgun that can accept an external magazine would now be illegal.

Like seriously, this hilarious bill bans like 90% of existing guns. You expect to impose jail time and a $100K fine on a quarter of the people of Lincoln? How progressive. A good thing the sponsor proposed an earlier bill to empty the jails, because looks like they are going to be overcrowded if this schit passes.

Also, do you realize how much hunting revenue you will lose? How high your deer population will climb? Winchester and springfield will be run out of your region. I guess since there will no longer be any guns its ok to promote hearing loss by banning suppressors.

Just note, if this passes I will be driving through Lincoln with my guns, so that I can sue.  Like, some of the other gun control bills proposed since I started playing Atlasia have been dumb and illegal, but this one takes the cake.
Logged
P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong
razze
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,743
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -4.96


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2018, 03:37:22 pm »

I applaud the steps taken by our neighbors to the north! If I were a Lincolner I'd be quite proud of my government for proposing such legislation.
Logged
wxtransit
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,667


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2018, 03:38:47 pm »

Implementing new gun control measures in the wake of increasing gun violence in both Lincoln and Atlasia at large
Lincoln Gun Control Act of 2018
Section 1: Prohibited Firearms
1. The following devices shall also be considered prohibited to operate, purchase, sell, or possess by private citizens:
-Suppressors
-Bump Stocks
2. The Following Firearms are prohibited to operate, purchase, sell or possess by private citizens:
-Any firearm that is equipped with a mechanism that, following the discharge of a cartridge, automatically operates to complete any part of the reloading cycle necessary to prepare for the discharge of the next cartridge with a magazine capable of holding 10 or more rounds of ammunition.
-Any other handgun that does not fit the above description with a magazine that can hold 10 or more rounds of ammunition.
-Any rifle with a magazine that can hold 5 or more rounds of ammunition.

3.Any individual that possess, uses, sells or purchases any of the above prohibited weapons or devices may face a fine not exceeding $100,000 and jail sentence not exceeding 3 years.

LOL. So basically, only old timey revolvers and some pump shotguns are allowed?

This bans all hunting rifles, including .22s. You know bolt action rifles can have magazines and that if it is hypothetically possible to have a magazine with 4 rounds it is hypothetically possible to have a magazine with a bajillion rounds. A springloaded box is a springloaded box. So yeah, any rifle or handgun that can accept an external magazine would now be illegal.

Like seriously, this hilarious bill bans like 90% of existing guns. You expect to impose jail time and a $100K fine on a quarter of the people of Lincoln? How progressive. A good thing the sponsor proposed an earlier bill to empty the jails, because looks like they are going to be overcrowded if this schit passes.

Also, do you realize how much hunting revenue you will lose? How high your deer population will climb? Winchester and springfield will be run out of your region. I guess since there will no longer be any guns its ok to promote hearing loss by banning suppressors.

Just note, if this passes I will be driving through Lincoln with my guns, so that I can sue.  Like, some of the other gun control bills proposed since I started playing Atlasia have been dumb and illegal, but this one takes the cake.
Logged
Senator YE
YE
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,306


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -0.52


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 27, 2018, 10:09:44 pm »

Liberals seem to have this idea that if they banned or overregulated guns, no one would have access to guns, and life would all be good (and in there defense, the evidence they point to - gun control in other countries - sounds sensible on paper). From a social aspect, there'd be unintended consequences. Legal rural hunting for millions would be vanished, and the chances would be drastic enough that an illegal gun black market would form, basically leading to another Prohibition. I urge all in the north to vote down this authoritarian measure, and start treating guns in a similar manner to how the War on Drugs should be handled. To be fair, this isn't the only gun control bill that basically bans almost all guns - in Fremont, a bill was introduced that is similar, though less invasive, that I intended to largely oppose when the time is appropriate.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 9,741
United States


P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 27, 2018, 10:23:55 pm »

Yeah, I'm with blackraisin, I could not support the bill in its present state. I'm not completely apprehensive to making it more difficult to purchase a firearm, but the restrictions here, and the penalties, are too severe.
Logged
Pragmatic Conservative
1184AZ
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,771


Political Matrix
E: 3.00, S: -0.41

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 27, 2018, 10:33:04 pm »

As a county we have endured enough gun violence and inaction from our politicians to come up with sensible reforms to reduce gun violence. This bill will make overly dangerous firearms illegal while allowing our regions citizens the ability to access much safer weapons in hopes that we reduce mass shootings and gun violence. This bill will hold gun store owners and individuals liable if they give a gun to an individual that is unqualified to posses one and they commit a violent crime with it. In this bill is an expanded background check component that includes both a mental health check and a check if an individual has made specific violent threats against local Lincoln businesses, institutions and individuals in the last 60 days. Finally this bill will require that visitors that enter a public school have their bags checked to ensure they are not carrying a weapon. I am open to amendment and hope we can get something substantial passed on this subject area after we have seen numerous attempt at gun reform fail.   
Logged
fhtagn
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,239
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 28, 2018, 01:25:28 am »

This bill will make overly dangerous firearms illegal while allowing our regions citizens the ability to access much safer weapons in hopes that we reduce mass shootings and gun violence.

Umm, let me direct you to the previous point:

This bans all hunting rifles, including .22s. You know bolt action rifles can have magazines and that if it is hypothetically possible to have a magazine with 4 rounds it is hypothetically possible to have a magazine with a bajillion rounds. A springloaded box is a springloaded box. So yeah, any rifle or handgun that can accept an external magazine would now be illegal.

This isn't banning "overly dangerous" firearms, you're trying to ban almost all of them.
Logged
Ses
jk2020
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,002



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 28, 2018, 01:27:40 am »

This seems excessive.
Logged
Ninja0428
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,947
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.39, S: -8.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 28, 2018, 08:55:48 am »

Those not from Lincoln shall refrain from cluttering and derailing this thread.
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,034
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 28, 2018, 10:54:05 am »

Legal rural hunting for millions would be vanished, and the chances would be drastic enough that an illegal gun black market would form, basically leading to another Prohibition.

I mean I know it's apples and oranges, but even in the UK rural hunting is still very much alive and well; anyone can get an air rifle, and go hunting for small game (rabbits, pigeons etc), and it's relatively easy to get a shotgun license.

You can go deer hunting in Scotland (although we have the problem of not enough deers) and I've shot a .22 in Scotland with someone who has a firearm license.

The restrictions come from who can actually buy/own the guns; rather than hunting.
Logged
Ninja0428
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,947
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.39, S: -8.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 28, 2018, 01:56:53 pm »

I noticed Blair mention "shotgun license", and the idea of different levels of firearm licenses with increasing restrictions does intrigue me. Perhaps we could amend (or completely rewrite) the bill in that fashion rather than having an outright ban on some of the types of guns you mentioned?
Logged
Pragmatic Conservative
1184AZ
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,771


Political Matrix
E: 3.00, S: -0.41

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 28, 2018, 02:16:23 pm »

I noticed Blair mention "shotgun license", and the idea of different levels of firearm licenses with increasing restrictions does intrigue me. Perhaps we could amend (or completely rewrite) the bill in that fashion rather than having an outright ban on some of the types of guns you mentioned?
I would certainly be open to such an amendment.
Logged
Through the fire, through the flames
weatherboy1102
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,540
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.61, S: -7.83

P

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 28, 2018, 03:40:11 pm »

I noticed Blair mention "shotgun license", and the idea of different levels of firearm licenses with increasing restrictions does intrigue me. Perhaps we could amend (or completely rewrite) the bill in that fashion rather than having an outright ban on some of the types of guns you mentioned?
I would certainly be open to such an amendment.
Sounds good actually, I'd be open to introducing a similar version of this in the house, with the entire licences amendment and such.
Logged
Esteemed Senator Jimmy7812
Jimmy7812
Atlas Politician
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,129
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -1.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 02, 2018, 06:10:56 pm »

I have some suggestions for the bill:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
fhtagn
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,239
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 02, 2018, 07:40:54 pm »

What is considered "mental issues", and how will it be determined that someone has had a history of them?
Logged
Ninja0428
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,947
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.39, S: -8.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 02, 2018, 08:05:58 pm »

What is considered "mental issues", and how will it be determined that someone has had a history of them?
I would assume that this would refer to mental health disorders that can receive medical diagnosis, as well as any recorded instances of attempting suicide and whatnot. Medical and police records could be used to determine them.
Logged
fhtagn
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,239
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 02, 2018, 08:06:39 pm »

I am also curious as to the logic of why suppressors would be banned when it is most commonly used in hunting, not mass shootings.

And lastly, how are you defining the difference between "rifles" and "assault rifles or other semi-automatic weapons"?

Here's an example of where there may be some confusion, as the first looks like your average hunting rifle, but the second, despite no functional differences, is being classified as an "assault rifle":

Logged
fhtagn
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,239
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 02, 2018, 08:15:13 pm »

What is considered "mental issues", and how will it be determined that someone has had a history of them?
I would assume that this would refer to mental health disorders that can receive medical diagnosis, as well as any recorded instances of attempting suicide and whatnot. Medical and police records could be used to determine them.

But which mental health disorders specifically, and what is the reasoning for that disorder over others that may not be included? How is it determined that someone is unfit to own a firearm because of mental health reasons if say, they have not attempted suicide? Or if they have, what is to say that their reason for attempting had happened many years prior was for reasons such as their reaction to losing a loved one, but have since learned from that mistake? Is there a particular time limit set or criteria for determining this? What about instances where someone chooses not to seek mental health treatment they may actually need in fear of their personal medical information being disclosed without their consent?  Who will do the reporting and how will it be recorded and updated? How will much will the funding required for a such a program cost (for this and the licenses), and how will that money be raised to ensure it is funded?
Logged
Pragmatic Conservative
1184AZ
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,771


Political Matrix
E: 3.00, S: -0.41

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 02, 2018, 08:20:40 pm »

What is considered "mental issues", and how will it be determined that someone has had a history of them?
I would assume that this would refer to mental health disorders that can receive medical diagnosis, as well as any recorded instances of attempting suicide and whatnot. Medical and police records could be used to determine them.

But which mental health disorders specifically, and what is the reasoning for that disorder over others that may not be included? How is it determined that someone is unfit to own a firearm because of mental health reasons if say, they have not attempted suicide? Or if they have, what is to say that their reason for attempting had happened many years prior was for reasons such as their reaction to losing a loved one, but have since learned from that mistake? Is there a particular time limit set or criteria for determining this? What about instances where someone chooses not to seek mental health treatment they may actually need in fear of their personal medical information being disclosed without their consent?  Who will do the reporting and how will it be recorded and updated? How will much will the funding required for a such a program cost (for this and the licenses), and how will that money be raised to ensure it is funded?

I personally would support each prospective gun owner having to getting a letter from a psychologist stating they are in good mental health before purchasing or receiving a weapon. As for cost I personally believe it should be paid by the person wanting to buy the gun.
Logged
fhtagn
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,239
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 02, 2018, 08:22:18 pm »

What is considered "mental issues", and how will it be determined that someone has had a history of them?
I would assume that this would refer to mental health disorders that can receive medical diagnosis, as well as any recorded instances of attempting suicide and whatnot. Medical and police records could be used to determine them.

But which mental health disorders specifically, and what is the reasoning for that disorder over others that may not be included? How is it determined that someone is unfit to own a firearm because of mental health reasons if say, they have not attempted suicide? Or if they have, what is to say that their reason for attempting had happened many years prior was for reasons such as their reaction to losing a loved one, but have since learned from that mistake? Is there a particular time limit set or criteria for determining this? What about instances where someone chooses not to seek mental health treatment they may actually need in fear of their personal medical information being disclosed without their consent?  Who will do the reporting and how will it be recorded and updated? How will much will the funding required for a such a program cost (for this and the licenses), and how will that money be raised to ensure it is funded?

I personally would support each prospective gun owner having to getting a letter from a psychologist stating they are in good mental health before purchasing or receiving a weapon. As for cost I personally believe it should be paid by the person wanting to buy the gun.

But how much will it cost and how is that cost determined?
Logged
Pragmatic Conservative
1184AZ
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,771


Political Matrix
E: 3.00, S: -0.41

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: March 02, 2018, 08:25:35 pm »

What is considered "mental issues", and how will it be determined that someone has had a history of them?
I would assume that this would refer to mental health disorders that can receive medical diagnosis, as well as any recorded instances of attempting suicide and whatnot. Medical and police records could be used to determine them.

But which mental health disorders specifically, and what is the reasoning for that disorder over others that may not be included? How is it determined that someone is unfit to own a firearm because of mental health reasons if say, they have not attempted suicide? Or if they have, what is to say that their reason for attempting had happened many years prior was for reasons such as their reaction to losing a loved one, but have since learned from that mistake? Is there a particular time limit set or criteria for determining this? What about instances where someone chooses not to seek mental health treatment they may actually need in fear of their personal medical information being disclosed without their consent?  Who will do the reporting and how will it be recorded and updated? How will much will the funding required for a such a program cost (for this and the licenses), and how will that money be raised to ensure it is funded?

I personally would support each prospective gun owner having to getting a letter from a psychologist stating they are in good mental health before purchasing or receiving a weapon. As for cost I personally believe it should be paid by the person wanting to buy the gun.

But how much will it cost and how is that cost determined?

Depends on how much the psychologist charges. As that cost is paid privately I don't see how knowing an exact cost is relevant here. 
Logged
fhtagn
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,239
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: March 02, 2018, 08:32:48 pm »

What is considered "mental issues", and how will it be determined that someone has had a history of them?
I would assume that this would refer to mental health disorders that can receive medical diagnosis, as well as any recorded instances of attempting suicide and whatnot. Medical and police records could be used to determine them.

But which mental health disorders specifically, and what is the reasoning for that disorder over others that may not be included? How is it determined that someone is unfit to own a firearm because of mental health reasons if say, they have not attempted suicide? Or if they have, what is to say that their reason for attempting had happened many years prior was for reasons such as their reaction to losing a loved one, but have since learned from that mistake? Is there a particular time limit set or criteria for determining this? What about instances where someone chooses not to seek mental health treatment they may actually need in fear of their personal medical information being disclosed without their consent?  Who will do the reporting and how will it be recorded and updated? How will much will the funding required for a such a program cost (for this and the licenses), and how will that money be raised to ensure it is funded?

I personally would support each prospective gun owner having to getting a letter from a psychologist stating they are in good mental health before purchasing or receiving a weapon. As for cost I personally believe it should be paid by the person wanting to buy the gun.

But how much will it cost and how is that cost determined?

Depends on how much the psychologist charges. As that cost is paid privately I don't see how knowing an exact cost is relevant here.  

It's going to cost the government money to issue the licenses and keep track of who has a license and when said license expires. What the psychologist charges has nothing to do with it, since they are not the ones providing and issuing them. You also increase the risk of abuse because the psychologist can charge more for prospective gun owners because they know it is now required that a psychologist is seen prior to firearm purchase, while charging other non-gun owners a different rate, despite receiving the same treatment.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,754
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: March 02, 2018, 08:36:45 pm »

What is considered "mental issues", and how will it be determined that someone has had a history of them?
I would assume that this would refer to mental health disorders that can receive medical diagnosis, as well as any recorded instances of attempting suicide and whatnot. Medical and police records could be used to determine them.

But which mental health disorders specifically, and what is the reasoning for that disorder over others that may not be included? How is it determined that someone is unfit to own a firearm because of mental health reasons if say, they have not attempted suicide? Or if they have, what is to say that their reason for attempting had happened many years prior was for reasons such as their reaction to losing a loved one, but have since learned from that mistake? Is there a particular time limit set or criteria for determining this? What about instances where someone chooses not to seek mental health treatment they may actually need in fear of their personal medical information being disclosed without their consent?  Who will do the reporting and how will it be recorded and updated? How will much will the funding required for a such a program cost (for this and the licenses), and how will that money be raised to ensure it is funded?

I personally would support each prospective gun owner having to getting a letter from a psychologist stating they are in good mental health before purchasing or receiving a weapon. As for cost I personally believe it should be paid by the person wanting to buy the gun.

But how much will it cost and how is that cost determined?

Depends on how much the psychologist charges. As that cost is paid privately I don't see how knowing an exact cost is relevant here.  

I didn't realize we were in the business of charging admission to certain sections of the Bill of Rights found in Article 1, of The Fourth Constitution. Should we take so little concern if say people's right to freedom of religion was made too costly for the poor to afford? Freedom of Speech?

Also I would note this indirectly makes the federal gov't pay for this provision, considering we subsidize mental health care.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,685
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: March 02, 2018, 08:39:07 pm »

Would medicaid eligible persons have their costs covered? Otherwise its effectively a regressive poll tax on a right.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.232 seconds with 14 queries.