SB 107-03: Federal Assault Weapon and Automatic Weapon Ban Full Repeal Act (Passed)

[WD]

AN ACT
To repeal the Federal Assault Weapon and Automatic Weapon Ban Act in its entirety.

Be it enacted by the Senate of the Republic of Atlasia assembled

Section 1. Title

1. This act may be cited as the Federal Assault Weapon and Automatic Weapon Ban Full Repeal Act.

Section 2. Definitions

2. All sections of the Federal Assault Weapon and Automatic Weapon Ban Act are hereby repealed in their entirety, effective immediately.

Sponsor: Ishan

The gentleman from Northern Ireland is recognized.

[S019]

Motion to table

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You guys have already repealed the most "egregious" sections of this ban, so I don't really see why this is necessary. Over the nearly two years this has been in place, it has saved countless lives and prevented many school shootings. If there are loopholes or inconsistencies within it, those can be corrected, but the core of the ban is essential and doing incredible work, and must not be thrown out.

I urge the Senate to look to the Region of Lincoln, which just expanded gun control with multi-party support after months of work, as an example to follow, and thus vote down this bill. Yes, while Lincoln children will remain safe pursuant to the regional law, other children, like those in the South, simply will not.

Thus, I URGE this Senate to protect our nation's children, stand with the region of Lincoln, and give this bill a UNANIMOUS vote of STRONG OPPOSITION.

[Schiff for Senate]

I agree strongly with Dwarven Dragon on this issue. The assault ban's positive effects are evident for all to see. There is no reason why this repeal should be passed, considering, as Dwarven stated, that the bill's most useful and powerful sections have already been struck down. What remains is something that should satisfy all who have any regard whatsoever for the lives saved by this bill's passage. The repeal should be resoundingly defeated so we can indicate that we as a legislative body oppose assault weapons and automatic weapons that are weapons of mass murder and destruction. I see no reason why this repeal should pass, unless you take fault with the lives that have been saved through the ban. I myself, supporting gun control measures that are proven to reduce gun violence, will definitely oppose this bill, and urge all of my fellow senators to do the same.

[OBD]

Melodrama aside, I don't support this bill, and will vote against it. I think the bipartisan compromise we passed last session is more than adequate in balancing gun rights and public safety.

[Continential]

The AWB is a bill that has done nothing to address the issue of gun violence. The vast majority of shootings don't involve automatic weapons and the term "assault weapon" is a very meaningless term which includes all sorts of weapons, even some that are less dangerous than  a hunting rifle. This bill should be repealed because it is an assault on the individual freedoms of the Atlasian people.

[Senator-elect Spark]

I will not support a further repeal of the AWB. The incidence of mass shootings has decreased marginally since its instatement. We simply cannot afford to jeopardize the lives of Atlasia citizens.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This proposal has the administration's full support, and as promised I will sign the bill if it passes. As the sponsor has said, the types of guns used in most mass shootings are unaffected by the "assault weapons" ban. But you don't need to be an expert on guns to know that the guns affected are no less dangerous than handguns, which are used in most gun crimes as well.

[Schiff for Senate]

The AWB is a bill that has done nothing to address the issue of gun violence. The vast majority of shootings don't involve automatic weapons and the term "assault weapon" is a very meaningless term which includes all sorts of weapons, even some that are less dangerous than  a hunting rifle. This bill should be repealed because it is an assault on the individual freedoms of the Atlasian people.

No one has a 'right' to own such a dangerous weapon, senator. It is used primarily if not exclusively for the purpose of killing many people quickly. Great if these are used less in shootings than other guns; there are still too many shootings and these weapons contribute to that (and you avoid mentioning that shootings that occur with these weapons leave more dead than shootings using less dangerous guns). Assault weapons is not a meaningless term by any mean, and nor is automatic weapon. The ban on these weapons has saved enough lives that even some infringement of the 'right' to own such dangerous weapons is justifiable. The right to not get shot and killed by these weapons, I think, is more important than the right to use these weapons.

[West_Midlander]

In my view, banning "assault weapons" is a well-intentioned knee-jerk policy pursuit that is actually ineffective in curbing gun violence or doing what the legislation intends to do. Furthermore, the legislation restricts the God-given rights of law-abiding Atlasian citizens.

The "assault weapons" ban should be repealed and left up to the regions.

[Schiff for Senate]

In my view, banning "assault weapons" is a well-intentioned knee-jerk policy pursuit that is actually ineffective in curbing gun violence or doing what the legislation intends to do. Furthermore, the legislation restricts the God-given rights of law-abiding Atlasian citizens.

The "assault weapons" ban should be repealed and left up to the regions.

I disagree. If in principle you disagree with this (the ban), then you should support the repeal. Or, if like me in principle you agree with the ban, then you should oppose the repeal. Leaving it up to the regions will result in some regions adopting one policy and others adopting another - all should be subject to the same laws with regards to this, for better or worse. I don't think your fate with regards to guns should be a result of what region you reside in. I would absolutely oppose leaving this up to the states. This issue is too important for that to be permissable.

[West_Midlander]

In my view, banning "assault weapons" is a well-intentioned knee-jerk policy pursuit that is actually ineffective in curbing gun violence or doing what the legislation intends to do. Furthermore, the legislation restricts the God-given rights of law-abiding Atlasian citizens.

The "assault weapons" ban should be repealed and left up to the regions.

I disagree. If in principle you disagree with this (the ban), then you should support the repeal. Or, if like me in principle you agree with the ban, then you should oppose the repeal. Leaving it up to the regions will result in some regions adopting one policy and others adopting another - all should be subject to the same laws with regards to this, for better or worse. I don't think your fate with regards to guns should be a result of what region you reside in. I would absolutely oppose leaving this up to the states. This issue is too important for that to be permissable.

It is not right that the South which presumably has a very pro-gun majority has to be put under the thumb of gun control elites in Nyman.

[WD]

I intend to support this bill.

[Schiff for Senate]

In my view, banning "assault weapons" is a well-intentioned knee-jerk policy pursuit that is actually ineffective in curbing gun violence or doing what the legislation intends to do. Furthermore, the legislation restricts the God-given rights of law-abiding Atlasian citizens.

The "assault weapons" ban should be repealed and left up to the regions.

I disagree. If in principle you disagree with this (the ban), then you should support the repeal. Or, if like me in principle you agree with the ban, then you should oppose the repeal. Leaving it up to the regions will result in some regions adopting one policy and others adopting another - all should be subject to the same laws with regards to this, for better or worse. I don't think your fate with regards to guns should be a result of what region you reside in. I would absolutely oppose leaving this up to the states. This issue is too important for that to be permissable.

It is not right that the South which presumably has a very pro-gun majority has to be put under the thumb of gun control elites in Nyman.

Just because a majority of people support something doesn't make it the right course of action to pursue. I would remind you that at one point a majority of southerners supported slavery. That doesn't make it right. And it sums up why certain issues are best acted on nationally, not on a state-by-state (or region-by-region, as the case may be) basis.

[West_Midlander]

In my view, banning "assault weapons" is a well-intentioned knee-jerk policy pursuit that is actually ineffective in curbing gun violence or doing what the legislation intends to do. Furthermore, the legislation restricts the God-given rights of law-abiding Atlasian citizens.

The "assault weapons" ban should be repealed and left up to the regions.

I disagree. If in principle you disagree with this (the ban), then you should support the repeal. Or, if like me in principle you agree with the ban, then you should oppose the repeal. Leaving it up to the regions will result in some regions adopting one policy and others adopting another - all should be subject to the same laws with regards to this, for better or worse. I don't think your fate with regards to guns should be a result of what region you reside in. I would absolutely oppose leaving this up to the states. This issue is too important for that to be permissable.

It is not right that the South which presumably has a very pro-gun majority has to be put under the thumb of gun control elites in Nyman.

Just because a majority of people support something doesn't make it the right course of action to pursue. I would remind you that at one point a majority of southerners supported slavery. That doesn't make it right. And it sums up why certain issues are best acted on nationally, not on a state-by-state (or region-by-region, as the case may be) basis.

I agree with the bolded section. Some issues are best determined at the federal level when it comes to moral issues of major consequence such as abolishing slavery and ending segregation. However, the right to own an "assault weapon" is not comparable at all to enslaving your fellow man.

[Mr. Reactionary]

If Lincoln gets to pass stricter gun control the south should be allowed to pass looser gun restrictions including permitting ownership of these extremely common tools. A federal ban encroaches on our regional rights which according to AG Truman is commie fascism.

This bill would also end the ridiculous prohibition making tens of millions of us federal criminals. That anyone can claim to be for criminal reform while supporting this stupid monstrosity that again made TENS OF MILLIONS OF ATLASIANS federal criminals overnight is absurd.

[Schiff for Senate]

In my view, banning "assault weapons" is a well-intentioned knee-jerk policy pursuit that is actually ineffective in curbing gun violence or doing what the legislation intends to do. Furthermore, the legislation restricts the God-given rights of law-abiding Atlasian citizens.

The "assault weapons" ban should be repealed and left up to the regions.

I disagree. If in principle you disagree with this (the ban), then you should support the repeal. Or, if like me in principle you agree with the ban, then you should oppose the repeal. Leaving it up to the regions will result in some regions adopting one policy and others adopting another - all should be subject to the same laws with regards to this, for better or worse. I don't think your fate with regards to guns should be a result of what region you reside in. I would absolutely oppose leaving this up to the states. This issue is too important for that to be permissable.

It is not right that the South which presumably has a very pro-gun majority has to be put under the thumb of gun control elites in Nyman.

Just because a majority of people support something doesn't make it the right course of action to pursue. I would remind you that at one point a majority of southerners supported slavery. That doesn't make it right. And it sums up why certain issues are best acted on nationally, not on a state-by-state (or region-by-region, as the case may be) basis.

I agree with the bolded section. Some issues are best determined at the federal level when it comes to moral issues of major consequence such as abolishing slavery and ending segregation. However, the right to own an "assault weapon" is not comparable at all to enslaving your fellow man.

Of course not. I agree. But the point remains the same - that some issues need national actions. (But obviously, as you said, slavery is much, much, much worse than gun violence - there's no question.)

[Continential]

Motion to table

I object to this motion.

[Dr. MB]

I support this

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I support this

The bill as proposed seems to go against the ideals of a communist party like the one you help run, as it would expand a private sector industry and thus not contribute to the centralization of the economy. Isn't supporting this bill going against what your supporters want?

[Mr. Reactionary]

I support this

The bill as proposed seems to go against the ideals of a communist party like the one you help run, as it would expand a private sector industry and thus not contribute to the centralization of the economy. Isn't supporting this bill going against what your supporters want?

"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempts to disarm the people must be stopped, by force if necessary" - Karl Marx

[DabbingSanta]

This has my full support, and I am glad that President Scott agrees. The Federal Assault Weapon Ban is in direct violation of the 2nd amendment and should have never been allowed to pass.  I am saddened that establishment conservatives Spark and CR oppose this bill. 

[Joseph Cao]

The rates and forms of gun violence we observe have not been materially affected by the assault weapons ban, which instead has been a bureaucratic nightmare and closed off avenues for other useful pursuits that don't involve shooting at other people. Westy has it exactly right – this is well-intentioned but knee-jerk in nature. If our gun violence is not a function of these "assault weapons" as others have been arguing, then I propose we repeal this legislative deadweight and start tackling the actual root causes of why Atlasians feel the need to go at each other's throats.

Motion to table

Motion to table

I object to this motion.

I really should not need to say this given that S019 and the man who recommended his post, between them, have had four or five times more experience running a legislative chamber than I, but this tabling motion is invalid as we have not gone anywhere near the minimum debate time required for tabling to be considered.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Motion to table

I object to this motion.

I really should not need to say this given that S019 and the man who recommended his post, between them, have had four or five times more experience running a legislative chamber than I, but this tabling motion is invalid as we have not gone anywhere near the minimum debate time required for tabling to be considered.

Just to be clear, my recommendation was simply to indicate agreement with the motion should it become eligible to be considered. I understand that there are requirements that a motion to table must meet before consideration and that those requirements have not been met. I am not suggesting such requirements should be ignored or changed. I simply wish to indicate my support for tabling, once such a motion is proper and seconded.

[Joseph Cao]

Motion to table

I object to this motion.

I really should not need to say this given that S019 and the man who recommended his post, between them, have had four or five times more experience running a legislative chamber than I, but this tabling motion is invalid as we have not gone anywhere near the minimum debate time required for tabling to be considered.

Just to be clear, my recommendation was simply to indicate agreement with the motion should it become eligible to be considered. I understand that there are requirements that a motion to table must meet before consideration and that those requirements have not been met. I am not suggesting such requirements should be ignored or changed. I simply wish to indicate my support for tabling, once such a motion is proper and seconded.

Thanks for the clarification – I'm sure WD will have it in hand, but this has to go on the record somewhere. Immediately motioning to table a bill is extremely ungentlemanly.