S.18.4-38: Zzap Act - Statute

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

3. This act shall take effect immediately. No lawsuit to enforce the provisions of the law shall be justiciable in any federal or Regional court until 90 days after this law takes effect.[/quote]

Sponsor: Wulfric, per a previous order of the Chamber
Originally proposed by Former Rep. Reactionary

[Mr. Reactionary]

So electric stunguns (aka tasers) have been growing in popularity and federal courts have been increasingly striking down bans as unconstitutional. This bill seeks to protect the right of our residents to have a non-lethal alternative form of self-defense.

Background: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/nonlethal.pdf

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/28/massachusetts-stun-gun-ban-challenge-in-federal-district-court/?utm_term=.2f4935e59c60

[CMB222]

This seems reasonable.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I propose the following amendment, on the rationale that the events mentioned in this article are sheer madness:
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Woman-Tased-Mall-Fight-Black-Friday-Philadelphia-233855601.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[fhtagn]

Stores and supermarkets aren't public property.

This was also one incident which involved someone being dumb with a stun gun, which already violates rules of conduct patrons are expected to abide by that were set by the property owner. It would be silly for the Southern government to overstep their bounds when it comes to private property over one isolated incident.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

There should not exist the potential for people who are shopping to get attacked with stun guns, even more so if it's for holiday shopping. It serves no ill purpose mandating that stores and supermarkets enforce this basic etiquette.

[fhtagn]

There should not exist the potential for people who are shopping to get attacked with stun guns, even more so if it's for holiday shopping. It serves no ill purpose mandating that stores and supermarkets enforce this basic etiquette.

There are rules for basic etiquette as laid out by the property owner. Property owners have the right to decide who enters their property, and may ask them to leave if they do not follow their rules. One isolated incident does not in any way, shape, or form mean that people are getting attacked by stun guns while holiday shopping. It's not a real problem.

And once again, stores and supermarkets are not public property. The Southern government does not have the authority to regulate this, especially given the wording of this bill.

[alancia]

I agree with the Deputy GM. This legislation, while reasonable, is only limited to public property and I feel expanding this into stores and supermarkets would be a bit of an overreach for the Southern Government.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Objection having been heard, a vote occurs on the proposed amendment. Please vote AYE or NAY on the amendment.

AYE

[alancia]

Nay

[CMB222]

Nay

[Mr. Reactionary]

As a compromise you could always just amend the Being Safe in Public Act to expressly allow private businesses to prohibit stunguns if they post signage. I mean "stores" includes stores that sell stunguns. The proposed amendment suggests that no store could ever possess a physical inventory of stunguns to sell on-site. Thats strange. I don't think anyone would object to affirming the right of property owners to exclude unwanted items from entering their buildings.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

fyi - I knew that I did not cover all the bases with the wording; I did not wish for a vote so soon, I wanted others to help improve it.
However, my hand is forced, so...AYE

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

We can always do another amendment after this one

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

We can always do another amendment after this one

yeah, that ought to be the plan.

[Former President tack50]

Aye

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The amendment is adopted by a vote of 3-2. Next amendment, please?

[fhtagn]

We can always do another amendment after this one

yeah, that ought to be the plan.

If your amendment is so bad it needs another amendment to fix it, it should have never been introduced and passed in the first place.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I'm happy to vote to undo the amendment we just did if it really is as problematic as Fhtagn claims.

[Former President tack50]

Well, in my opinion the ammendment is fine as is (and may even be a tiny bit on the lenient side, I could think of a couple more places where I'd say tasers should be banned)

[fhtagn]

Quoting this again cause maybe y'all would consider this

As a compromise you could always just amend the Being Safe in Public Act to expressly allow private businesses to prohibit stunguns if they post signage. I mean "stores" includes stores that sell stunguns. The proposed amendment suggests that no store could ever possess a physical inventory of stunguns to sell on-site. Thats strange. I don't think anyone would object to affirming the right of property owners to exclude unwanted items from entering their buildings.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

We could just remove the exception for Stores (also fixed a typo):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not formally offering this yet, just floating it out there as a possible solution.

[fhtagn]

Supermarkets are still not public property, and this idea would not have even prevented the one time incident TimTurner gave.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Supermarkets are still not public property, and this idea would not have even prevented the one time incident TimTurner gave.

Specifying "malls and supermarkets" in an attempt to address Turner's exact example seems to incur the argument made here:

I mean "stores" includes stores that sell stunguns. The proposed amendment suggests that no store could ever possess a physical inventory of stunguns to sell on-site.

[Mr. Reactionary]

We could just remove the exception for Stores (also fixed a typo):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not formally offering this yet, just floating it out there as a possible solution.

Would Walmart count as supermarket?