HR 21-07: Finalizing Freak Power Amendment (Final Vote)

[Pericles]

SENATE RESOLUTION

SECTION 1.

1. This Act may be cited as the "Finalizing Freak Power Amendment”.

SECTION 2.

Article I, Section 7, of the Fourth Constitution, is amended to read as follows:

A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms and low-potency explosives shall not be infringed.

Amendment Explanation
Adds the bearing of low-potency explosives as a right.

People's Regional Senate
Passed 4-1-1 in the Atlasian Senate Assembled,
 
House of Representatives

Sponsor: fhtagn
House Designation: HR 21-07

[Pericles]

This needs a sponsor.

[fhtagn]

I'm willing to sponsor this.

[Pericles]

24 hours to object to fhtagn sponsoring this.

[Blair]

very interested in this purely because I had no idea it was in the original Constitution; so I'll be more open minded to it, but I'm still sceptical about what this would include, and I'm equally unsure if an amendment is the best way to do this. 

[Pericles]

fhtagn is recognized as the sponsor and is invited to speak on this amendment.

[fhtagn]

MB said in the Senate thread all that really needs to be said about this
 

This was based off an amendment that was in the old pre-reset Constitution for over a decade. It's pretty self explanatory, low-potency explosives should not be restricted by the federal government.

[thumb21]

As Pyro brought up in the senate thread and Blair also brought up, I'm not sure why a constitutional amendment is nessessary.

The content of the proposal I am happy with and I won't oppose simply because I think this is probably better as statute. And, ultimately the people will decide by referendum.

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

Low potency explosives should be regulated by the government. I will oppose this when it comes for a vote

[fhtagn]

Motioning for a final vote.

[Blair]

Objecting; as members have raised concerns & as I'd like to see more debate on this (and we've been waiving through a fair amount of bills)

[Pericles]

Representatives have 72 hours to vote on whether or not to end debate on this amendment.

[JGibson]

NAY

[thumb21]

Nay

[Blair]

Nay

[fhtagn]

Aye

[YE]

Nay

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

Nay

[RC (a la Frémont)]

Aye

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I never understood why there should be a constitutional right to own fireworks. I think people should be allowed to own cars and fishing poles, too, but that doesn't mean I support adding those things to the Bill of Rights.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Aye

[Pericles]

Cloture is rejected 3-5-0-1.
Aye; 3 (fhtagn, ReaganClinton, LouisvilleThunder)
Nay; 5 (JGibson, thumb21, Blair, YE, razze)
Abstaining; 0
Not voting; 1 (Elcaspar)

Debate resumes on this amendment.

[Blair]

Lets get debate started quickly. Main two questions I have

1.) Why does this need to be an constitutional amendment rather than an legislative one?

2.) what would the definition of a low potency explosive be, and would there be any unforeseen consequences of allowing these?

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

This does not need to be in the constitution. Its inclusion in the constitution could also lead to unforeseen consequences given how simple the language is, which is already a problem with the current wording of Article 1 Section 7.

[thumb21]

Bump