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

[WD]

First and foremost, unless another Senator seconds S019’s motion, there is nothing to act on. Second, for those who so vigorously defend this law, could you present evidence or explain how it has saved lives?

[Schiff for Senate]

First and foremost, unless another Senator seconds S019’s motion, there is nothing to act on. Second, for those who so vigorously defend this law, could you present evidence or explain how it has saved lives?

Shootings have decreased. Gun deaths have decreased. It's that simple. It is very obvious how this decreases gun violence and death.

EDIT: As a sidenote, I'm still not 100% sure on some features of Atlasia and whether it would be good to cite real life statistics, but as Dwarven showed, the actual Assault Weapons Ban in 1994 did what I above describe.

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.  

You misunderstand in this case. My name is reflective of my overall views - I'm a centrist, and by no means an establishment conservative. I definitely agree with conservatives on some issues, but am far from actually being an establishment conservative, particularly if being so implies that I must agree with conservatives on each issue. I agree with you, for instance, on a few issues, but strongly disagree with you on others (including this one, as it appears). I am centrist, and effectively an independent in many ways, regardless of whatever my political affiliation may be. I am not a conservative and will never be.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

First and foremost, unless another Senator seconds S019’s motion, there is nothing to act on. Second, for those who so vigorously defend this law, could you present evidence or explain how it has saved lives?

While an inactive GM department has prevented us from having precise figures on how many lives this ban has saved, we know that a similar RL Bill, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, saved countless lives and created a disaster of mass shootings when it was allowed to expire. See:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/studies-gun-massacre-deaths-dropped-during-assault-weapons-ban-increased-after-expiration
https://law.stanford.edu/2019/10/15/the-assault-weapon-ban-saved-lives/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/24/bidens-claim-that-1994-assault-weapons-law-brought-down-mass-shootings/
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/28/982035019/the-u-s-has-restricted-assault-style-weapons-before-did-it-work

Thus we can logically infer that the Atlasian Ban is having a similar positive effect on preserving life.

[Continential]

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?

What is your response to Marx's quote?

[Mr. Reactionary]

First and foremost, unless another Senator seconds S019’s motion, there is nothing to act on. Second, for those who so vigorously defend this law, could you present evidence or explain how it has saved lives?

While an inactive GM department has prevented us from having precise figures on how many lives this ban has saved, we know that a similar RL Bill, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, saved countless lives and created a disaster of mass shootings when it was allowed to expire. See:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/studies-gun-massacre-deaths-dropped-during-assault-weapons-ban-increased-after-expiration
https://law.stanford.edu/2019/10/15/the-assault-weapon-ban-saved-lives/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/24/bidens-claim-that-1994-assault-weapons-law-brought-down-mass-shootings/
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/28/982035019/the-u-s-has-restricted-assault-style-weapons-before-did-it-work

Thus we can logically infer that the Atlasian Ban is having a similar positive effect on preserving life.

Given that there are 10s of millions of such guns in private ownership already and there are fewer than 400 deaths by rifle per year the claim that this saves "countless lives" is specious at best. According to the GM there were 12 million privately owned AR15s alone in 2019. So conservatively there are over 20 million privately owned "assault weapons" in Atlasia. If we round up to 400 rifle deaths and assume every single rifle death is from an assault weapon (unlikely) that means there is 1 murder per 50,000 assault weapons so you would need 50,000 surrendered assault weapons to decrease the murder rate by a single person (and thats assuming criminals turn in their rifles at the same rate as law abiding citizens). When New Jersey required the surrender of bump stocks in 2018 ZERO were surrendered. There is no gun registry in Atlasia so surrender would have to be voluntary. So again the idea that this has saved any lives, let alone "countless" is an absolute joke.

 https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=316056.msg6717396#msg6717396

[Schiff for Senate]

First and foremost, unless another Senator seconds S019’s motion, there is nothing to act on. Second, for those who so vigorously defend this law, could you present evidence or explain how it has saved lives?

While an inactive GM department has prevented us from having precise figures on how many lives this ban has saved, we know that a similar RL Bill, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, saved countless lives and created a disaster of mass shootings when it was allowed to expire. See:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/studies-gun-massacre-deaths-dropped-during-assault-weapons-ban-increased-after-expiration
https://law.stanford.edu/2019/10/15/the-assault-weapon-ban-saved-lives/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/24/bidens-claim-that-1994-assault-weapons-law-brought-down-mass-shootings/
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/28/982035019/the-u-s-has-restricted-assault-style-weapons-before-did-it-work

Thus we can logically infer that the Atlasian Ban is having a similar positive effect on preserving life.

Given that there are 10s of millions of such guns in private ownership already and there are fewer than 400 deaths by rifle per year the claim that this saves "countless lives" is specious at best. According to the GM there were 12 million privately owned AR15s alone in 2019. So conservatively there are over 20 million privately owned "assault weapons" in Atlasia. If we round up to 400 rifle deaths and assume every single rifle death is from an assault weapon (unlikely) that means there is 1 murder per 50,000 assault weapons so you would need 50,000 surrendered assault weapons to decrease the murder rate by a single person (and thats assuming criminals turn in their rifles at the same rate as law abiding citizens). When New Jersey required the surrender of bump stocks in 2018 ZERO were surrendered. There is no gun registry in Atlasia so surrender would have to be voluntary. So again the idea that this has saved any lives, let alone "countless" is an absolute joke.

 https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=316056.msg6717396#msg6717396

Even if your maths is correct, I would say some people not being allowed to buy a certain type of gun (they can still buy other types) is a cost worth it even if 'only' 400 are saved. Ask the families of victims of assault weapons what they would choose, their family member back or some people having access to a certain type of weapon which is very dangerous. I would prioritize their opinion. They - and this includes a constituent who privately contaced me and asked me to oppose this repeal, who told me they know people who died from assault weapon violence - should not have to pay the cost of such dangerous weapons being truly available. It is my duty to serve the constituent I speak of, as well as many others, and make sure that what happened to that constituent doesn't happen to even more. And if surrender is voluntary, this bill still goes in the right direction since no new assault weapons will be sold. I'd like to finally address your point about a gun registry - perhaps we should have one. Not only would it have benefits in and of itself, it would also allow other measures, like the ban we speak of, to be more effective. If the registry doesn't exist and makes other laws less practiceable, the solution isn't to repeal the laws - it's to create a registry.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & 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?

What is your response to Marx's quote?

I suppose it is a matter of priorities, but personally I think that saving countless lives is a far more important matter than providing arms for the populace, and while I don't personally support economic centralization, if I did, I would not carve out an exception for expanding the right to bear arms, as all that does is endanger the very population that we all want to preserve.

[Mr. Reactionary]

First and foremost, unless another Senator seconds S019’s motion, there is nothing to act on. Second, for those who so vigorously defend this law, could you present evidence or explain how it has saved lives?

While an inactive GM department has prevented us from having precise figures on how many lives this ban has saved, we know that a similar RL Bill, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, saved countless lives and created a disaster of mass shootings when it was allowed to expire. See:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/studies-gun-massacre-deaths-dropped-during-assault-weapons-ban-increased-after-expiration
https://law.stanford.edu/2019/10/15/the-assault-weapon-ban-saved-lives/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/24/bidens-claim-that-1994-assault-weapons-law-brought-down-mass-shootings/
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/28/982035019/the-u-s-has-restricted-assault-style-weapons-before-did-it-work

Thus we can logically infer that the Atlasian Ban is having a similar positive effect on preserving life.

Given that there are 10s of millions of such guns in private ownership already and there are fewer than 400 deaths by rifle per year the claim that this saves "countless lives" is specious at best. According to the GM there were 12 million privately owned AR15s alone in 2019. So conservatively there are over 20 million privately owned "assault weapons" in Atlasia. If we round up to 400 rifle deaths and assume every single rifle death is from an assault weapon (unlikely) that means there is 1 murder per 50,000 assault weapons so you would need 50,000 surrendered assault weapons to decrease the murder rate by a single person (and thats assuming criminals turn in their rifles at the same rate as law abiding citizens). When New Jersey required the surrender of bump stocks in 2018 ZERO were surrendered. There is no gun registry in Atlasia so surrender would have to be voluntary. So again the idea that this has saved any lives, let alone "countless" is an absolute joke.

 https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=316056.msg6717396#msg6717396

Even if your maths is correct, I would say some people not being allowed to buy a certain type of gun (they can still buy other types) is a cost worth it even if 'only' 400 are saved. Ask the families of victims of assault weapons what they would choose, their family member back or some people having access to a certain type of weapon which is very dangerous. I would prioritize their opinion. They - and this includes a constituent who privately contaced me and asked me to oppose this repeal, who told me they know people who died from assault weapon violence - should not have to pay the cost of such dangerous weapons being truly available. It is my duty to serve the constituent I speak of, as well as many others, and make sure that what happened to that constituent doesn't happen to even more. And if surrender is voluntary, this bill still goes in the right direction since no new assault weapons will be sold. I'd like to finally address your point about a gun registry - perhaps we should have one. Not only would it have benefits in and of itself, it would also allow other measures, like the ban we speak of, to be more effective. If the registry doesn't exist and makes other laws less practiceable, the solution isn't to repeal the laws - it's to create a registry.

Close to 100,000 Atlasians die annually from alcohol related causes. If trampling on the God given rights of Atlasians just to maybe save 400 lives is worth it, I think you are making a mockery of death by not focusing on the real killer and prohibiting alcohol. Around 38,000 Atlasians die each year from car accidents. More than 3,500 Atlasians die per year from swimmimg pools and the same goes for the flu, 9X as many as from rifles. Again you are making a mockery of these deaths by not consistently applying your logic and banning cars and swimming pools or mandating flu shots. Hell over 200 Atlasians die each year from huffing glue. Might as well ban that too to save lives. More than 300 Atlasians are murdered by illegal immigrants each year. That is a significantly higher per capita death rate than from rifles. Will the deportations start? Or is this just a hypocritical case of "muh I hatez icky gunz so if it saves even 1 life its worth it but OMG I likez the other things so we cant ban them despite killing more people than icky gunz because only I getz to decide what is good and bad..."?

Also, there are over 350 million unregistered guns in private hands. How do you expect to create a registry? Go door to door? Hire tens of thousands of new ATF agents at a cost of over 2 billion dollars annually? You are advocating for making 10s of millions of Atlasians federal criminals and greatly increasing the risk of police shoot outs. All for Atlasians merely exercising a constitutionally protected, God given right. Whats next, a registry of everyone who has ever signed a petition or invoked their right against self incrimination? Frankly even suggesting such an evil policy should be an impeachable act.

[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?

What is your response to Marx's quote?

I suppose it is a matter of priorities, but personally I think that saving countless lives is a far more important matter than providing arms for the populace, and while I don't personally support economic centralization, if I did, I would not carve out an exception for expanding the right to bear arms, as all that does is endanger the very population that we all want to preserve.

Every time you falsely claim "countless lives" are saved Im going to remind everyone that your claim is a lie. Plus if the murder rate from rifles has gone down in the last few years despite the number of legally owned machine guns more than tripling in that time, that suggests its not the result of gun bans.

[Schiff for Senate]

First and foremost, unless another Senator seconds S019’s motion, there is nothing to act on. Second, for those who so vigorously defend this law, could you present evidence or explain how it has saved lives?

While an inactive GM department has prevented us from having precise figures on how many lives this ban has saved, we know that a similar RL Bill, the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, saved countless lives and created a disaster of mass shootings when it was allowed to expire. See:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/studies-gun-massacre-deaths-dropped-during-assault-weapons-ban-increased-after-expiration
https://law.stanford.edu/2019/10/15/the-assault-weapon-ban-saved-lives/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/03/24/bidens-claim-that-1994-assault-weapons-law-brought-down-mass-shootings/
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/28/982035019/the-u-s-has-restricted-assault-style-weapons-before-did-it-work

Thus we can logically infer that the Atlasian Ban is having a similar positive effect on preserving life.

Given that there are 10s of millions of such guns in private ownership already and there are fewer than 400 deaths by rifle per year the claim that this saves "countless lives" is specious at best. According to the GM there were 12 million privately owned AR15s alone in 2019. So conservatively there are over 20 million privately owned "assault weapons" in Atlasia. If we round up to 400 rifle deaths and assume every single rifle death is from an assault weapon (unlikely) that means there is 1 murder per 50,000 assault weapons so you would need 50,000 surrendered assault weapons to decrease the murder rate by a single person (and thats assuming criminals turn in their rifles at the same rate as law abiding citizens). When New Jersey required the surrender of bump stocks in 2018 ZERO were surrendered. There is no gun registry in Atlasia so surrender would have to be voluntary. So again the idea that this has saved any lives, let alone "countless" is an absolute joke.

 https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=316056.msg6717396#msg6717396

Even if your maths is correct, I would say some people not being allowed to buy a certain type of gun (they can still buy other types) is a cost worth it even if 'only' 400 are saved. Ask the families of victims of assault weapons what they would choose, their family member back or some people having access to a certain type of weapon which is very dangerous. I would prioritize their opinion. They - and this includes a constituent who privately contaced me and asked me to oppose this repeal, who told me they know people who died from assault weapon violence - should not have to pay the cost of such dangerous weapons being truly available. It is my duty to serve the constituent I speak of, as well as many others, and make sure that what happened to that constituent doesn't happen to even more. And if surrender is voluntary, this bill still goes in the right direction since no new assault weapons will be sold. I'd like to finally address your point about a gun registry - perhaps we should have one. Not only would it have benefits in and of itself, it would also allow other measures, like the ban we speak of, to be more effective. If the registry doesn't exist and makes other laws less practiceable, the solution isn't to repeal the laws - it's to create a registry.

a.) Close to 100,000 Atlasians die annually from alcohol related causes. If trampling on the God given rights of Atlasians just to maybe save 400 lives is worth it, I think you are making a mockery of death by not focusing on the real killer and prohibiting alcohol. b.) Around 38,000 Atlasians die each year from car accidents. c.) More than 3,500 Atlasians die per year from swimmimg pools and d.) the same goes for the flu, 9X as many as from rifles. Again you are making a mockery of these deaths by not consistently applying your logic and banning cars and swimming pools or mandating flu shots...

e.) Also, there are over 350 million unregistered guns in private hands. How do you expect to create a registry? Go door to door? Hire tens of thousands of new ATF agents at a cost of over 2 billion dollars annually? You are advocating for making 10s of millions of Atlasians federal criminals and greatly increasing the risk of police shoot outs. All for Atlasians merely exercising a constitutionally protected, God given right. Whats next, a registry of everyone who has ever signed a petition or invoked their right against self incrimination? f.) Frankly even suggesting such an evil policy should be an impeachable act.

a.) Car accidents are inevitible unless you want to ban cars
b.) Alcohol related deaths are inherently the fault of the drinker, not the fault of someone else, so unless you are suggesting that those who die of gun violence are somehow responsible for their death, I don't see how a comparison works.
c.) Same thing from b.) applies to swimming pools.
d.) Similar logic to b.); people can choose to get vaccinated against the flu (and yes, I do support mandating the COVID19 vaccine but that's not what's being debated and addressed here and in this bill, so not sure how relevant it is right now)
e.) It isn't a criminal registry, so let's make that very clear to begin with. It's just a way to track all guns, and it wouldn't be publicly accessible, hypothetically. 
f.) Sorry you feel that way. Luckily, you don't unilateraly decide who gets impeached and the overall Senate isn't as reactionary as you are (as your username is a clear indicator).

[Mr. Reactionary]

a.) Car accidents are inevitible unless you want to ban cars

Gun murders are inevitable unless you want to go door to door rounding up 350 million guns. How can you so coldly ignore the almost 100,000 Atlasians dying every year? That does not comport with your "logic".

b.) Alcohol related deaths are inherently the fault of the drinker, not the fault of someone else, so unless you are suggesting that those who die of gun violence are somehow responsible for their death, I don't see how a comparison works.

Drunk drivers kill other people. Alcoholism is a disease. 80% of gun deaths are 1. Suicide 2. Gangs 3. Law enforcement caused. That means 80% of gun deaths do bear some resposibility. If anything the comparison makes your "logic" seem more illogical.

c.) Same thing from b.) applies to swimming pools.

So if a baby drowns in a pool its the baby's fault? Impecable "logic".

d.) Similar logic to b.); people can choose to get vaccinated against the flu (and yes, I do support mandating the COVID19 vaccine but that's not what's being debated and addressed here and in this bill, so not sure how relevant it is right now)

Unvaccinated flu spreaders kill lots of olds. Again the idea that only guns and literally nothing else have externalities that statistically result in the deaths of others is not rooted in fact or "logic".

e.) It isn't a criminal registry, so let's make that very clear to begin with. It's just a way to track all guns, and it wouldn't be publicly accessible, hypothetically.

And when I dont register my guns am I a criminal?

f.) Sorry you feel that way. Luckily, you don't unilateraly decide who gets impeached and the overall Senate isn't as reactionary as you are (as your username is a clear indicator).

Id rather be a reactionary that someone tyrannically supporting the imprisonment of 20 million atlasians to "save" maybe 400 all while violating my oath of office to protect the Atlasian Constitution. If you really cared about Atlasians dying youd target the myriad of activities that kill many, many times more people than skerry boombooms. You just want to ban guns because you dislike them, not because you have some "logical" principle on protecting human life. Why is the life of a shooting victim worth more than the life of someone killed by another driver? Oh, because you personally use cars but dont use guns. Screw the 38,000 car accident victims and screw the 20 million assault weapon owners.

[OBD]

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & 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?

What is your response to Marx's quote?

I suppose it is a matter of priorities, but personally I think that saving countless lives is a far more important matter than providing arms for the populace, and while I don't personally support economic centralization, if I did, I would not carve out an exception for expanding the right to bear arms, as all that does is endanger the very population that we all want to preserve.

Every time you falsely claim "countless lives" are saved Im going to remind everyone that your claim is a lie. Plus if the murder rate from rifles has gone down in the last few years despite the number of legally owned machine guns more than tripling in that time, that suggests its not the result of gun bans.

The gentleman from Virginia made the machine gun argument during the last debate on this law, and it rings just as hollow now as an argument for repeal as it did then. If current law is insufficient to prevent access to machine guns, the answer is to amend the AWB to firmly ban machine guns, not to throw out the entirety of what continues to be a miraculous law.

The same applies to an argument that handguns are a remaining legal culprit.

[WD]

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?

What is your response to Marx's quote?

I suppose it is a matter of priorities, but personally I think that saving countless lives is a far more important matter than providing arms for the populace, and while I don't personally support economic centralization, if I did, I would not carve out an exception for expanding the right to bear arms, as all that does is endanger the very population that we all want to preserve.

Every time you falsely claim "countless lives" are saved Im going to remind everyone that your claim is a lie. Plus if the murder rate from rifles has gone down in the last few years despite the number of legally owned machine guns more than tripling in that time, that suggests its not the result of gun bans.

The gentleman from Virginia made the machine gun argument during the last debate on this law, and it rings just as hollow now as an argument for repeal as it did then. If current law is insufficient to prevent access to machine guns, the answer is to amend the AWB to firmly ban machine guns, not to throw out the entirety of what continues to be a miraculous law.

I’d suggest you read Mr. R’s post again. If the murder rate is on a decline despite an increase in machine gun ownership, what good will further restrictions do? Absolutely nothing.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & 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?

What is your response to Marx's quote?

I suppose it is a matter of priorities, but personally I think that saving countless lives is a far more important matter than providing arms for the populace, and while I don't personally support economic centralization, if I did, I would not carve out an exception for expanding the right to bear arms, as all that does is endanger the very population that we all want to preserve.

Every time you falsely claim "countless lives" are saved Im going to remind everyone that your claim is a lie. Plus if the murder rate from rifles has gone down in the last few years despite the number of legally owned machine guns more than tripling in that time, that suggests its not the result of gun bans.

The gentleman from Virginia made the machine gun argument during the last debate on this law, and it rings just as hollow now as an argument for repeal as it did then. If current law is insufficient to prevent access to machine guns, the answer is to amend the AWB to firmly ban machine guns, not to throw out the entirety of what continues to be a miraculous law.

I’d suggest you read Mr. R’s post again. If the murder rate is on a decline despite an increase in machine gun ownership, what good will further restrictions do? Absolutely nothing.

Well, he used two different terms, "Rifles" and "Machine Guns". The Assault Weapons Ban, even in the weakened form now in effect, does ban at least some rifles:

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

So if Rifle ownership and thus death from Rifles has gone down, the AWB has indeed caused that death decline.

As far as the point that the overall murder rate is declining despite an increase in Machine Gun Ownership, there are a couple possibilities:

1) The decrease in murder from Rifles, caused by the AWB, has cancelled out any increase in murder by machine guns, or

2) The act of the government restricting rifles has made the populace fear that misuse of other guns will result in those guns being restricted, and thus the populace is not committing murders with guns that are still available at the same rates.

Either possibility would immediately stop occurring should this repeal pass, and I am confident the murder rate would increase significantly immediately following the repeal.

Amending the ban to ensure that Machine Guns (or handguns, if those are a major problem) are also not avaliable to the populace will eliminate further possible sources of murder, and thus cause a deeper decrease in the murder rate than is being seen currently.

All repeal will do is increase the murder rate and serve as an encouragement to conduct school shootings.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I fully support this repeal. I agree with the statements shared on the first page about AWBs being a kneejerk reaction and have generally opposed bans based on classes of weapons.

[Pericles]

Seconding the motion to table.

[S019]

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.

I just read the rules and there does not seem to be a minimum time for tabling to be considered

1.) Any Senator can, during a period of debate, with the support of one other Senator, introduce a motion to table the legislation.

Thus, I believe the motion should not only be valid, but it has now been seconded, if I am wrong, then please correct me.

[WD]

The motion has not been seconded.

[Pericles]

I can make the motion if you'd like, but either way there are two Senators that are motioning to table.

[S019]

I can make the motion if you'd like, but either way there are two Senators that are motioning to table.

Seconded

[WD]

Seconding the motion to table.

Sorry, didn’t see this.

A vote on the motion to table is open. Senators, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[S019]

AYE

[Pericles]

No worries WD.

Aye

[WD]

Nay