HB 22-02: Federal Assault Weapon and Automatic Weapon Ban Act (Passed)

[Elcaspar]

Aye

[lfromnj]

Nay

[thumb21]

Vote is tied

4-4-0-1

Vice Presidential tie breaker required

[Pericles]

Aye

[thumb21]

The amendment is adopted

[fhtagn]

Given that the original writer of the bill and supporters of the bill outright refuse to adequately address serious concerns with this bill, and that the bill as written is unconstitutional, I'm going to motion to table this.

Given that supporters of this bill have still failed to do so, and that no one has outlined a valid reason for this bill, even with the amendment, to pass, I'm going to motion to table again.

[Blair]

Given that supporters of this bill have still failed to do so, and that no one has outlined a valid reason for this bill, even with the amendment, to pass, I'm going to motion to table again.

Hi Fghtan I'm still waiting for a post that you promised about why you saw the bill as unconstitutional

fhtagn as someone who is undecided could you outline what is unconstitutional about this bill?

Not completely ignoring this. Been a busy few days IRL and plan to address it within the next couple days.

Sorry, not trying to ignore stuff. Work and medical stuff IRL has been crazy and I've been involved with some RL political stuff that's taken up quite a bit of free time. I have the full response saved on my laptop, just haven't had a chance to use it lately. Will be up in the next few days.

I waited a week before doing anything on this bill because I was waiting for your response. I'm a bit upset you've now motioned to table when there clearly isn't the votes for it & when I waited in good faith for your response.

[fhtagn]

Given that supporters of this bill have still failed to do so, and that no one has outlined a valid reason for this bill, even with the amendment, to pass, I'm going to motion to table again.

Hi Fghtan I'm still waiting for a post that you promised about why you saw the bill as unconstitutional

fhtagn as someone who is undecided could you outline what is unconstitutional about this bill?

Not completely ignoring this. Been a busy few days IRL and plan to address it within the next couple days.

Sorry, not trying to ignore stuff. Work and medical stuff IRL has been crazy and I've been involved with some RL political stuff that's taken up quite a bit of free time. I have the full response saved on my laptop, just haven't had a chance to use it lately. Will be up in the next few days.

I waited a week before doing anything on this bill because I was waiting for your response. I'm a bit upset you've now motioned to table when there clearly isn't the votes for it & when I waited in good faith for your response.

I made my point before your request and yet not a single supporter of this bill bothered to address it.

The fact that we have a bill on the floor and not a single person has outlined a valid need for this is insanely concerning.

[Former President tack50]

I mean, unlike with other bills where she has also played the "it is unconstitutional" card without explanation; it is fairly easy to see where fhtagn is coming from here. Article 1, section 7 of the Constitution states:

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

Anyways, the constitutionality of this bill is something for the Supreme Court to decide, not for Congress.  Fhtagn, if you are really so worried, why not sue if/when this gets passed? Would give us some real Atlasian jurisprudence on the "2nd amendment" plus give the Justices something to do.

Plus as a former justice it is not like Blair is unaware of what is and is not unconstitutional ;-)

[fhtagn]

I mean, unlike with other bills where she has also played the "it is unconstitutional" card without explanation; it is fairly easy to see where fhtagn is coming from here. Article 1, section 7 of the Constitution states:

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

Anyways, the constitutionality of this bill is something for the Supreme Court to decide, not for Congress.  Fhtagn, if you are really so worried, why not sue if/when this gets passed? Would give us some real Atlasian jurisprudence on the "2nd amendment" plus give the Justices something to do.

Plus as a former justice it is not like Blair is unaware of what is and is not unconstitutional ;-)

Why should we pass something when not a single person (yourself included) has outlined a valid reason for it to pass?


It's also worth noting that it doesn't only violate Article I, Section 7. It also violates Sections 5 and 8.

[Dr. MB]

doesn't look like this has the votes to pass in the first place

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The only real question is if the House wants to prevent mass shootings. If they do, they must vote Yes.

[fhtagn]

The only real question is if the House wants to prevent mass shootings. If they do, they must vote Yes.

There's plenty of ways to address gun violence (which includes mass shootings) that do not involve ineffective bans that only target law abiding citizens that have never and will never harm an innocent person with their firearm.

[Pericles]

The only real question is if the House wants to prevent mass shootings. If they do, they must vote Yes.

There's plenty of ways to address gun violence (which includes mass shootings) that do not involve ineffective bans that only target law abiding citizens that have never and will never harm an innocent person with their firearm.

Funny thing you've never presented such a way in your long, long career in Atlasia.

[fhtagn]

The only real question is if the House wants to prevent mass shootings. If they do, they must vote Yes.

There's plenty of ways to address gun violence (which includes mass shootings) that do not involve ineffective bans that only target law abiding citizens that have never and will never harm an innocent person with their firearm.

Funny thing you've never presented such a way in your long, long career in Atlasia.

I've never blocked reasonable measures in my time in Atlasia.

Nothing about gun bans are in any way, shape, or form reasonable. It doesn't work. Plain and simple.

[Pericles]

The only real question is if the House wants to prevent mass shootings. If they do, they must vote Yes.

There's plenty of ways to address gun violence (which includes mass shootings) that do not involve ineffective bans that only target law abiding citizens that have never and will never harm an innocent person with their firearm.

Funny thing you've never presented such a way in your long, long career in Atlasia.

I've never blocked reasonable measures in my time in Atlasia.

Nothing about gun bans are in any way, shape, or form reasonable. It doesn't work. Plain and simple.

That's moving the goalposts-your job isn't just to stop bad stuff but push for good stuff. If you can't do the latter then your time in Atlasia has truly been a failure.

[fhtagn]

The only real question is if the House wants to prevent mass shootings. If they do, they must vote Yes.

There's plenty of ways to address gun violence (which includes mass shootings) that do not involve ineffective bans that only target law abiding citizens that have never and will never harm an innocent person with their firearm.

Funny thing you've never presented such a way in your long, long career in Atlasia.

I've never blocked reasonable measures in my time in Atlasia.

Nothing about gun bans are in any way, shape, or form reasonable. It doesn't work. Plain and simple.

That's moving the goalposts-your job isn't just to stop bad stuff but push for good stuff. If you can't do the latter then your time in Atlasia has truly been a failure.

Speak for yourself, Peri.

I've pushed plenty of good bills in my time in Atlasia. This just isn't a good bill.

[Pericles]

The only real question is if the House wants to prevent mass shootings. If they do, they must vote Yes.

There's plenty of ways to address gun violence (which includes mass shootings) that do not involve ineffective bans that only target law abiding citizens that have never and will never harm an innocent person with their firearm.

Funny thing you've never presented such a way in your long, long career in Atlasia.

I've never blocked reasonable measures in my time in Atlasia.

Nothing about gun bans are in any way, shape, or form reasonable. It doesn't work. Plain and simple.

That's moving the goalposts-your job isn't just to stop bad stuff but push for good stuff. If you can't do the latter then your time in Atlasia has truly been a failure.

Speak for yourself, Peri.

I've pushed plenty of good bills in my time in Atlasia. This just isn't a good bill.

Yet another unsubstantiated personal attack, seems like the kind of thing a failed obstructionist politician would say-not a public servant who gets things done.

[fhtagn]

The only real question is if the House wants to prevent mass shootings. If they do, they must vote Yes.

There's plenty of ways to address gun violence (which includes mass shootings) that do not involve ineffective bans that only target law abiding citizens that have never and will never harm an innocent person with their firearm.

Funny thing you've never presented such a way in your long, long career in Atlasia.

I've never blocked reasonable measures in my time in Atlasia.

Nothing about gun bans are in any way, shape, or form reasonable. It doesn't work. Plain and simple.

That's moving the goalposts-your job isn't just to stop bad stuff but push for good stuff. If you can't do the latter then your time in Atlasia has truly been a failure.

Speak for yourself, Peri.

I've pushed plenty of good bills in my time in Atlasia. This just isn't a good bill.

Yet another unsubstantiated personal attack, seems like the kind of thing a failed obstructionist politician would say-not a public servant who gets things done.

I simply bolded what you said to me.

Stop pretending to be a victim, Peri. You aren't one and no one feels bad for you.

[Blair]

Offering the following amendment

Federal Assault Weapon and Automatic Weapon Ban Act

SECTION I: Name and Intent

A.) This bill may be cited as the Federal Assault Weapon and Automatic Weapon Ban Act.

Section II: Criteria

1.) There shall be a nationwide ban on the purchasing, manufacturing, sale, or possession of assault weapons. The criteria laid out in Section 3A to shall be used to classify assault weapons.

2.) The prohibition does not apply to a firearm that is (1) manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action; (2) permanently inoperable; (3) an antique; or (4) a rifle or shotgun specifically identified by make and model.

3.) Any of the following features shall classify a firearm as an 'Assault Weapon'.

A.) Any semi automatic rifle which has a High Capacity Magazine (see Section III) which can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

B.) Any firearm which has a bayonet lug.

C.) Any firearm which has a threaded barrel.

D.) Any semi-automatic pistol with a detachable magazine in front, or outside of the pistol grip.

E.) Any semi-automatic pistol with a detachable magazine which can accept more than 15 rounds.

F.) Any semi-automatic shotgun with one or more of the following criteria; a pistol grip, a forward grip, a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

SECTION III: High Capacity Magazine Ban

A.) A large capacity ammunition feeding device is hereby classified as any device including a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, helical feeding device, or similar device, including any such device joined or coupled with another in any manner, that has an overall capacity of, or that can be readily restored, changed, or converted to accept rounds above the limits in Section 2 A, E and F.

C.) The above shall not apply to the possession of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed on or before the date of enactment of this Act.

Section IV

A.) This Act shall not apply to any firearm purchased, owned, manufactured or possessed before the enactment of this act.

B.) This Act shall not apply to any firearm purchased, owned, manufactured or possessed for law enforcement or Military purposes.

SECTION V: TIMING

1. This bill shall take effect 6 months after being enacted.

[fhtagn]

Is there a valid reason for the number being at 10?

There's not a single source I can find for why that specific number is necessary, and in all likelihood would go down a slippery slope to lowering the number more for no legitimate reason. Please keep the argument away from "need" because it's not relevant. 

Objecting to the amendment in the meantime.

[fhtagn]

Also worth noting not a single supporter of this bill has outlined a legitimate need for this bill in the first place. It does nothing to effectively reduce the rate of gun deaths (most of those are from handguns and are the result of suicides). If you want to push this bill, you have a responsibility to address this.

[thumb21]

Amendment vote

72 hours

[lfromnj]

Any assault weapon ban is PURE liberal fear mongering and there is 0 argument for it considering the amount of deaths that come from assault weapons is around 5% of All gun murders.

[Blair]

AYE

I will be addressing this bill in full- 10 was the number in the legislation drafted that I was basing this on and I felt for continuity it made sense to have it at the same number that was in the legislation for shotgun rounds.

I had 15 for pistols because a large number of more modern handguns tend to use a larger capacity magazines than 8 or 10 rounds.

I also reject the idea this is anything about Liberal fearmongering- I'm not a liberal & I never have been- I'm a proud social democrat.