L10.4.1 Lincoln Gun Control Act of 2018

[fhtagn]

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.

[fhtagn]

What is considered "mental issues", and how will it be determined that someone has had a history of them?

[fhtagn]

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":

[fhtagn]

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?

[fhtagn]

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?

[fhtagn]

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.

[fhtagn]

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.

I believe the costs of licenses should be paid by those wanting to own a gun. As for administrative costs I will have those numbers costed by the GM office before budget time. Though I trust costs should be kept low.

If there's anything that costs money it should be reflected in the bill itself prior to passing, not at a later date.

There's also a few other questions asked earlier in the thread that haven't been answered (not saying just you should answer them, but I would like to receive an answer from at least someone in the assembly, such as Jimmy since he proposed the changes).

[fhtagn]

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.

I believe the costs of licenses should be paid by those wanting to own a gun. As for administrative costs I will have those numbers costed by the GM office before budget time. Though I trust costs should be kept low.

If there's anything that costs money it should be reflected in the bill itself prior to passing, not at a later date.

There's also a few other questions asked earlier in the thread that haven't been answered (not saying just you should answer them, but I would like to receive an answer from at least someone in the assembly, such as Jimmy since he proposed the changes).

I should note that the plan is to make the costs of licensing revenue neutral so the revenue from licencens will counteract the costs of the licencing system.

But that still needs to be reflected in the bill itself.

[fhtagn]

I mean the comparison still stands. The AR-15 is really no different than most "safe" hunting rifles. There is really no reason to ban it when it is no more harmful.

My question about why suppressors would be prohibited also wasn't addressed.

[fhtagn]

I can understand raising the age requirement for obtaining an AR-15 if you want to implement some stricter regulation on it in response to mass shootings, but banning it outright is just silly and doesn't solve much. Especially when you consider the above point that it functionally isn't different from most modern hunting rifles, and the fact that the vast majority of gun deaths are from handguns, not AR-15s. Based on 2016 numbers, handguns were involved in murders 19x more than rifles, and 9x more than all other guns combined (Source). So using that logic, how is the AR-15 dangerous enough to be prohibited in the Lincoln Region, when it kills nowhere near as many people as "safe" handguns?

[fhtagn]

So with the magazine limit of 10, does this mean the Lincoln Region will also be banning the Glock 17 handgun, and would this also apply to law enforcement?

Edit: Should also point out some flaws with magazine limits:
1. It only takes a few seconds to change out a magazine, hardly does anything to slow down a mass shooter. and many mass shooters don't rely on high capacity magazines to do the job, they rely on multiple firearms, or just carry more magazines to change out.
2. School shootings like the ones at Columbine and Virginia Tech didn't involve the use of high capacity magazines.
3. What happens to all the higher capacity magazines already in circulation?
4. Most homicides involving guns are done in less than 10 shots, so it doesn't stop the majority of gun deaths.

[fhtagn]

I'm just wondering if this was going to be addressed at any point:

So this programme will cost around $8.188 billion. Taking into account factors like non compliance, the license fee would need to be at-least $243.39 on average per gun to break even.

Regressive poor tax to exercise a right.