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

[Former President tack50]

Aye

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Nay on amendment

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.

Ok Blairite

[Former President tack50]

Nay on amendment

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.

Ok Blairite

Given Blair's username, I guess he would wear the Blairite badge proudly (then again this is Atlasia, not RL)

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Nay on amendment

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.

Ok Blairite

Given Blair's username, I guess he would wear the Blairite badge proudly (then again this is Atlasia, not RL)

He usually doesn't though. 

[RC]

Nay, the limit isn’t necessary.

[Elcaspar]

Aye

[fhtagn]

Nay


And issues with this bill really should be addressed before anything else is done, especially when these amendments don't actually address the problems with this bill.

[lfromnj]

Nay

[thumb21]

Amendment fails

3-4-0-2

[Blair]

prepare for a very long floor speech from me on this

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

So much winning!

[Blair]

When this bill arrived on the floor as it was written I would have voted against it; but the amendments I've put in have moved this to being acceptable in my view.

By grandfathering in protections & ensuing that people who already own and bought these weapons legally aren't prosecuted I believe it solves one of the legal issues; I actually disagreed with Tack's earlier point that we shouldn't judge the constitutionally of this bill- I think we should, and I believe it is constitutional. I've read some articles specifically on this issue of assault weapon bans & as someone who have served on the court I would be more than happy to defend this.

Now I could cite an intolerable number of journal & news articles about the impact that both the RL Federal & state wide assault weapon bans (like the quoted extract below)

We found that public mass shootings — which we defined as incidents in which a gunman killed at least six people in public — dropped during the decade of the federal ban. Yet, in the 15 years since the ban ended, the trajectory of gun massacres has been sharply upward, largely tracking the growth in ownership of military-style weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Using the Mother Jones mass shooting database, we identified the number of gun massacres over a 35-year period. (And following the F.B.I.’s approach, we excluded crimes of armed robbery and gang or domestic violence in evaluating public active shooter incidents.) Compared with the decade before its adoption, the federal assault weapon ban in effect from September 1994 through 2004 was associated with a 25 percent drop in gun massacres (from eight to six) and a 40 percent drop in fatalities (from 81 to 49).

   

But of course we have a different approach in Atlasia; indeed I support our existing framework and support that the right to own firearms exist as a constitutionally guaranteed right; but as I've said before it's a right which in my view should exist with certain common sense restrictions- hence why we don't allow fully automatic weaponry and why we have a licensing system.

So why an Assault Weapon Ban? Frankly I believe that firearm use should be tailored around what it's designed for; home defence & hunting. You don't need in my view need a 15 round semi automatic rifle for hunting; nor can I see the reasonable defence for having a semi automatic shotgun that holds more than 10 rounds.

I support this bill because I believe that assault weapons should be limited to our police & our military and because I believe the evidence suggests that an assault weapon ban would lower the number of gun deaths & reduce the number of large mass casualty shootings; we will no doubt fall into the rather juvenile well if you ban x they'll just use Y but frankly I think in this case the assault weapons should be taken off the table.

[fhtagn]

Sorry, but "need" is an invalid defense for this bill.

That same poorly thought out argument can be used to restrict other rights. No one "needs" absentee voting, they can vote in person . No one "needs" to practice their Islamic faith, other religions exist. News publications don't "need" to report on certain topics, there are tons of other topics they can report on. So the government is free to restrict it. 

The facts also don't support your argument because an assault weapons ban won't have any meaningful impact on the number of gun deaths. The vast majority of gun deaths involve the use of handguns, and are the result of suicide.

Taking away a tool doesn't magically make bad things go away. Evil always exists, and all facts prove that if you take away one tool, someone who wants to commit mass murder will find other means of doing so. This will also only serve to create a black market for these weapons, where they will easily become more accessible to criminals who want to cause harm to large amounts of people, without the checks that we have now.

[Blair]

motioning for a final vote

[fhtagn]

Objecting to the motion, as it's clear Blair is ignoring my response
 

[thumb21]

Sorry, didn't notice this..


Cloture vote

72 hours

[Former President tack50]

Aye

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Nay

[thumb21]

Aye

[RC]

Nay, I'd like to see where this goes

[Blair]

I motion to withdraw my cloture motion

[thumb21]

Debate continues

[thumb21]

Does anyone actually have anything to add?

I think we should just go to a final vote.

[Elcaspar]

Seconding the motion for a final vote.

[fhtagn]

Objecting to the final vote motion, as my original reason for objecting to the last final vote motion was still not addressed.