L10.4.1 Lincoln Gun Control Act of 2018 (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 01, 2024, 04:29:23 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  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 (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: L10.4.1 Lincoln Gun Control Act of 2018  (Read 3211 times)
Wells
MikeWells12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,075
United States


« on: March 05, 2018, 05:29:39 PM »

I'm not usually supportive of gun control, and this is no exception. It almost was, considering there is a little bit in here I think are good, actually common sense ideas, such as licenses. But, as people in this thread (who know more about guns than we do) have pointed out, the distinction between the types of guns allowed by each license needs work. And making people pay for their licenses is, as Mr. Reactionary said, regressive. I would support making it clear in the bill that citizens will not have to pay. In the same vein, the bill is more expensive then I thought it would be. We need to cut the cost somehow. Perhaps we could do away with Class A licenses and make it legal to obtain those types of weapons without a license, while keeping the other weapons licensed. Other suggestions from Assembly members would be nice.

I don't support banning bump stocks, suppressors, or magazines. This has already been addressed in the thread by other people. And the third part of section 2 is confusing: "iii. Any individual who made a specific threat against a specific a specific citizen, business or institution in Lincoln within the last 60 days from the time they attempt to squire a firearm in Lincoln." That describes someone who made a threat, but doesn't say anything else about them. I assume that they aren't allowed to purchase a gun (which isn't a bad idea), but the bill doesn't make it clear. Could this be clarified to me, and then in the bill?

Holding gun sellers criminally liable seems authoritarian. It reminds me of when Trump said we should punish the neighbors of people who commit crimes for not reporting possible suspicious activity. I don't think we should start down that road. I do realize that it is only if they knew the buyer was not legally allowed or would commit a crime, but I doubt any convictions would come from that.

The school safety bit is fine.

I think that's everything. I hope you take this into account. My current vote would be a no, but if all these issues are fixed, I will probably vote for it.
Logged
Wells
MikeWells12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,075
United States


« Reply #1 on: March 23, 2018, 04:53:26 PM »

Aye, but I would like the bill to be fixed much more.
Logged
Wells
MikeWells12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,075
United States


« Reply #2 on: March 23, 2018, 05:11:09 PM »

Woops meant to vote nay, but it doesn't look like the outcome would have been any different regardless. Unsure
Logged
Wells
MikeWells12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,075
United States


« Reply #3 on: March 24, 2018, 03:38:21 PM »

Woops meant to vote nay, but it doesn't look like the outcome would have been any different regardless. Unsure
I see you were for the bill before you were against it. Tongue It shows how Lincoln's next Senator has such excellent judgement! Devil

I mean I was doing Atlasia while distracted. I was always against the bill though. Not really a flip flop.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
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 0.022 seconds with 14 queries.