HB 25-02: Repeal of the Federal Assault Weapon and Automatic Weapon Ban Act (Debating)

[Sestak]

HOUSE BILL

Repeal of the Federal Assault Weapon and Automatic Weapon Ban Act

To repeal the misguided and ineffective assault weapons ban.

Be it enacted by both houses of the Congress of Atlasia

All parts of the Federal Assault Weapon and Automatic Weapon Ban Act are hereby repealed.

People's Regional Senate
Passed 4-2 in the Atlasian Senate Assembled,

Designation: HB 25-02
Sponsor: Encke

[Sestak]

This needs a sponsor.

[Fmr. Representative Encke]

I'll sponsor

[Sestak]

24 hours to object to the Representative Encke assuming sponsorship.

[SevenEleven]

Amendment offered:

Firearm Safety and Regulation Act

To strengthen public safety and reduce gun violence.

Be it enacted by both houses of the Congress of Atlasia

1. All parts of the Federal Assault Weapon and Automatic Weapon Ban Act are extended indefinitely.

2. The National Safe Gun Registry and Administration (NSGRA) is hereby created as a subsidiary of the Department of Justice.

3. All currently owned or newly purchased legal firearms, including handguns, are required to be registered with the NSGRA within one year of this law's enactment.

4. Local and federal law enforcement agencies are mandated to keep up-to-date records of firearm ownership logged and shared with the NSGRA.

5. Beginning one year after this law's enactment, any firearm purchased must be submitted to and approved by the NSGRA before being released to the owner. There shall be a minimum waiting period of one calendar month from the date of purchase before the release of  an approved firearm.

6. Law enforcement agencies shall be granted access to the NSGRA on an as-needed basis.

7. Firearm owners are solely responsible for the usage and whereabouts of their personal firearms. Any missing or stolen firearms must be reported to local law enforcement and the NSGRA immediately. Negligent firearm owners may be held responsible for the criminal use of their weapons.

[Sestak]

Without objection, the Representative Encke is recognized as sponsor.

[Fmr. Representative Encke]

Amendment unfriendly.

[Sestak]

HOUSE BILL

Repeal of the Federal Assault Weapon and Automatic Weapon Ban Act

To repeal the misguided and ineffective assault weapons ban.

Be it enacted by both houses of the Congress of Atlasia

All parts of the Federal Assault Weapon and Automatic Weapon Ban Act are hereby repealed. xtended indefinitely.

2. The National Safe Gun Registry and Administration (NSGRA) is hereby created as a subsidiary of the Department of Justice.

3. All currently owned or newly purchased legal firearms, including handguns, are required to be registered with the NSGRA within one year of this law's enactment.

4. Local and federal law enforcement agencies are mandated to keep up-to-date records of firearm ownership logged and shared with the NSGRA.

5. Beginning one year after this law's enactment, any firearm purchased must be submitted to and approved by the NSGRA before being released to the owner. There shall be a minimum waiting period of one calendar month from the date of purchase before the release of  an approved firearm.

6. Law enforcement agencies shall be granted access to the NSGRA on an as-needed basis.

7. Firearm owners are solely responsible for the usage and whereabouts of their personal firearms. Any missing or stolen firearms must be reported to local law enforcement and the NSGRA immediately. Negligent firearm owners may be held responsible for the criminal use of their weapons.

Amendment from: Rep. SevenEleven
Sponsor feedback: Hostile

WITHDRAWN by sponsor on 9 July

[Sestak]

Representatives, The Question is on Adoption of the Amendment above.

The question is put forth for a 72 hour vote.

[Mike Thick]

Abstain. I think the proponent of the amendment has some good ideas, but I would prefer to consider such questions in separate legislation, and continue debating the bill as proposed.

[Fmr. Representative Encke]

Nay

[SevenEleven]

Aye

[tmthforu94]

This amendment is not germane to the intents of the bill and it is inappropriate that it was ever considered. The VP should have rejected this amendment.  If this is your intent, reject this legislation and propose a new one - this is not how proper governing should be done.

[Pericles]

This amendment is not germane to the intents of the bill and it is inappropriate that it was ever considered. The VP should have rejected this amendment.  If this is your intent, reject this legislation and propose a new one - this is not how proper governing should be done.

Precedent shows that this is in order, given that fhtagn hijacked a gun control bill last year to instead weaken gun laws.

[SevenEleven]

This amendment is not germane to the intents of the bill and it is inappropriate that it was ever considered. The VP should have rejected this amendment.  If this is your intent, reject this legislation and propose a new one - this is not how proper governing should be done.

The thinking is that, with the President a veto in the current form, it would be more productive to move in a direction where common ground could be found. With so many parties calling for responsible gun ownership and striking a balance, it seemed to me that moving the conversation to encourage more personal responsibility while providing additional tools to benefit the public safety would not be controversial.

If you have suggestions on what else could be done to facilitate safe and responsible gun ownership, I think we'd be happy to consider the merits of those as well.

This amendment is not germane to the intents of the bill and it is inappropriate that it was ever considered. The VP should have rejected this amendment.  If this is your intent, reject this legislation and propose a new one - this is not how proper governing should be done.

Precedent shows that this is in order, given that fhtagn hijacked a gun control bill last year to instead weaken gun laws.

I'm not trying to hijack the original bill, to clarify here. I just don't want to waste time with legislation that is clearly DOA.

[tmthforu94]

This amendment is not germane to the intents of the bill and it is inappropriate that it was ever considered. The VP should have rejected this amendment.  If this is your intent, reject this legislation and propose a new one - this is not how proper governing should be done.

Precedent shows that this is in order, given that fhtagn hijacked a gun control bill last year to instead weaken gun laws.

That should have been struck down as well. Just because something has precedent doesn't make it right.

Sev, I'm not raising any objections to the amendments in question, I'm just pointing out what I believe should be the proper procedure for governing. Your amendment seeks to do the opposite of what the initial intent of this bill was. The main intent of this bill is what should be debated, it passed one chamber so should merit some consideration. Perhaps a better compromise can be reached, rather than fully reversing the intent of this bill. If folks have a completely different view, it would be best for it to be proposed as new legislation. I hope you'll consider introducing new legislation on the matter and I'm glad to see you taking an active role right off the bat in the House.

[Fmr. Representative Encke]

This amendment is not germane to the intents of the bill and it is inappropriate that it was ever considered. The VP should have rejected this amendment.  If this is your intent, reject this legislation and propose a new one - this is not how proper governing should be done.

The thinking is that, with the President a veto in the current form, it would be more productive to move in a direction where common ground could be found. With so many parties calling for responsible gun ownership and striking a balance, it seemed to me that moving the conversation to encourage more personal responsibility while providing additional tools to benefit the public safety would not be controversial.

If you have suggestions on what else could be done to facilitate safe and responsible gun ownership, I think we'd be happy to consider the merits of those as well.

This amendment is not germane to the intents of the bill and it is inappropriate that it was ever considered. The VP should have rejected this amendment.  If this is your intent, reject this legislation and propose a new one - this is not how proper governing should be done.

Precedent shows that this is in order, given that fhtagn hijacked a gun control bill last year to instead weaken gun laws.

I'm not trying to hijack the original bill, to clarify here. I just don't want to waste time with legislation that is clearly DOA.

Except the amendment doesn't seek to find common ground, because it extends the AWB indefinitely while also creating a gun registry.

[Sestak]

This amendment is not germane to the intents of the bill and it is inappropriate that it was ever considered. The VP should have rejected this amendment.  If this is your intent, reject this legislation and propose a new one - this is not how proper governing should be done.

The House, as I am aware, does not have any rules regulating content of bills beyond frivolity; certainly not anything to do with the "intent" of content. As has already been mentioned, the precedent is in favor of allowing this sort of thing. If the House wants to change the precedent they may go ahead, but as VP I feel I would be overstepping to impose a content restriction unilaterally.

Also, I must warn. Going ahead and putting such a restriction in place would lead to a massive mess of personal interpretation and blame-pushing regarding what exactly counts as "initial intent". Some members might argue, for instance, that even weakening a bill in order to let it pass as "against the initial intent". Or changing just one subsection in a large bill into the opposite etc.. I don't see of a good way to implement sich a rule without making everyone's life miserable

[Joseph Cao]

Concurring with Ted's sentiment that while the spirit of the amendment deserves discussion, this is not the appropriate place for it.

Nay on adoption of the amendment.

[tmthforu94]

Fair enough, I guess. At least change the name of the bill if you’re going to amend it so drastically, though, to avoid confusion for when I update the statue. The current name doesn’t represent the spirit of the proposed amendment, if it passes.

(I encourage Congress to pass a rules change blocking non-germane amendments, fwiw. Just because they’re currently allowed doesn’t make it right.)

[Mike Thick]

Appreciate Sev's explanation of why he introduced the amendment, and his reasoning is pretty solid. I also agree with Ses: drawing a line between "germane" and "non-germane" intentions would undermine a lot of the give-and-take that goes into bill negotiation, and he was right not to yank the amendment.

That said, the amendment doesn't just swap out a couple of provisions -- it turns the bill into something completely different from what the author intended, and I don't think anyone here disputes that. As such, I stand by my original statement and don't plan to change my vote.

[SevenEleven]

This amendment is not germane to the intents of the bill and it is inappropriate that it was ever considered. The VP should have rejected this amendment.  If this is your intent, reject this legislation and propose a new one - this is not how proper governing should be done.

The thinking is that, with the President a veto in the current form, it would be more productive to move in a direction where common ground could be found. With so many parties calling for responsible gun ownership and striking a balance, it seemed to me that moving the conversation to encourage more personal responsibility while providing additional tools to benefit the public safety would not be controversial.

If you have suggestions on what else could be done to facilitate safe and responsible gun ownership, I think we'd be happy to consider the merits of those as well.

This amendment is not germane to the intents of the bill and it is inappropriate that it was ever considered. The VP should have rejected this amendment.  If this is your intent, reject this legislation and propose a new one - this is not how proper governing should be done.

Precedent shows that this is in order, given that fhtagn hijacked a gun control bill last year to instead weaken gun laws.

I'm not trying to hijack the original bill, to clarify here. I just don't want to waste time with legislation that is clearly DOA.

Except the amendment doesn't seek to find common ground, because it extends the AWB indefinitely while also creating a gun registry.

Would you rather do an extension that sunsets in five years? I really don't think assault weapons and automatic weapons are happening right now.

I am surprised that amending a gun policy bill with a broader gun safety policy is so controversial around here and I'm not sure I understand why. The amendment is withdrawn.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

This amendment is not germane to the intents of the bill and it is inappropriate that it was ever considered. The VP should have rejected this amendment.  If this is your intent, reject this legislation and propose a new one - this is not how proper governing should be done.

The thinking is that, with the President a veto in the current form, it would be more productive to move in a direction where common ground could be found. With so many parties calling for responsible gun ownership and striking a balance, it seemed to me that moving the conversation to encourage more personal responsibility while providing additional tools to benefit the public safety would not be controversial.

If you have suggestions on what else could be done to facilitate safe and responsible gun ownership, I think we'd be happy to consider the merits of those as well.

This amendment is not germane to the intents of the bill and it is inappropriate that it was ever considered. The VP should have rejected this amendment.  If this is your intent, reject this legislation and propose a new one - this is not how proper governing should be done.

Precedent shows that this is in order, given that fhtagn hijacked a gun control bill last year to instead weaken gun laws.

I'm not trying to hijack the original bill, to clarify here. I just don't want to waste time with legislation that is clearly DOA.

Except the amendment doesn't seek to find common ground, because it extends the AWB indefinitely while also creating a gun registry.

Would you rather do an extension that sunsets in five years? I really don't think assault weapons and automatic weapons are happening right now.

I am surprised that amending a gun policy bill with a broader gun safety policy is so controversial around here and I'm not sure I understand why. The amendment is withdrawn.

We love our guns around here.

[Mike Thick]

Yes. Ted Bessell, notorious lover of firearms

[Gracile]

Nay on the amendment.