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

[Saint Milei]

Aye, reluctantly.

[WD]

Vote on final passage:

Aye (10): Western Democrat, MB, Old School Republican, West Midlander, Dabbing Santa, Ishan, Muad’dib, Joseph Cao, North Carolina Yankee, DeadPrez

Nay (5): Pericles, Spark, S019, Kuumo, OBD

Abstain (1): Discolovante

Not voting (2): Tack, CentristRepublican


This bill is passed and goes to the President for his signature or veto.

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 All sections of the Federal Assault Weapon and Automatic Weapon Ban Act are hereby repealed in their entirety, effective immediately.

3. The categories of weapons set out in the repealed legislation shall subsequently be regulated under the National Firearms Act.

Passed 10-5-1-2 in the Atlasian Senate assembled,

 

Western Democrat, President Pro Tempore

[WD]

The President has submitted a redraft of the bill.

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 All sections of the Federal Assault Weapon and Automatic Weapon Ban Act are hereby repealed in their entirety, effective immediately.

The sponsor has 96 hours to accept this redraft or request an override.

[Continential]

I accept this redraft.

[WD]

The redraft being accepted, the bill is now law.

[Saint Milei]

I accept this redraft.

Thank you and  thank you president scott

[Sestak]

um...you do know that you have to actually vote on the redraft, right? Text can't just become law without the Senate voting on it. Accepting the redraft just triggers a final vote of the redraft; it's unconstitutional for it to just be declared law. The Senate has never voted for this text.

Redraft is not a formal power in the standard sense; it's just the ability for the President to immediately submit legislation in place of a passed bill that they have vetoed. It still needs to be voted on.

[WD]

um...you do know that you have to actually vote on the redraft, right? Text can't just become law without the Senate voting on it. Accepting the redraft just triggers a final vote of the redraft; it's unconstitutional for it to just be declared law. The Senate has never voted for this text.

Redraft is not a formal power in the standard sense; it's just the ability for the President to immediately submit legislation in place of a passed bill that they have vetoed. It still needs to be voted on.

No where in the rules is such a thing stated.

3.) If a redraft is presented, the original sponsor shall have 96 hours after it is offered to accept the redraft or reject it and request an override. If the redraft is rejected by the Senate, the sponsor may then either motion to resume debate on the bill or withdraw the bill from the floor. If the original sponsor shall have left the chamber, the presiding officer shall allow for someone to assume sponsorship as with a normal bill, with the 96 hours commencing after it is completed.

[Sestak]

um...you do know that you have to actually vote on the redraft, right? Text can't just become law without the Senate voting on it. Accepting the redraft just triggers a final vote of the redraft; it's unconstitutional for it to just be declared law. The Senate has never voted for this text.

Redraft is not a formal power in the standard sense; it's just the ability for the President to immediately submit legislation in place of a passed bill that they have vetoed. It still needs to be voted on.

No where in the rules is such a thing stated.

3.) If a redraft is presented, the original sponsor shall have 96 hours after it is offered to accept the redraft or reject it and request an override. If the redraft is rejected by the Senate, the sponsor may then either motion to resume debate on the bill or withdraw the bill from the floor. If the original sponsor shall have left the chamber, the presiding officer shall allow for someone to assume sponsorship as with a normal bill, with the 96 hours commencing after it is completed.

If the rule implies that then it’s unconstitutional; you can’t pass a law if the Senate doesn’t vote on it!

Also there is absolutely no provision of that rule that says ‘sponsor accepts the redraft’ implies passage; so my reading would be that the bill is not yet passed.

[WD]

Fair enough.

A vote on the redraft is now open. Senators, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

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.

[WD]

Aye

[Schiff for Senate]

Nay.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Aye

[West_Midlander]

Aye

[Continential]

Aye

[Kuumo]

Nay

[OBD]

Nay.

Shame how little one's word mean in the Senate these days.

[S019]

NAY

[If my soul was made of stone]

NAY

[Pericles]

Nay.

Shame how little one's word mean in the Senate these days.

[Saint Milei]

Aye

[Dr. MB]

Aye

[Former President tack50]

Nay

[Mr. Reactionary]

Nay.

Shame how little one's word mean in the Senate these days.

Who are you calling a liar? Thats a pretty serious charge to level. Surely you have a statement and speaker in mind to make an inflammatory statement like that so let us know who told you what lie. Considering Pericles' amendment secretly added hundreds of millions of dollars in unfunded spending obligations without a single word of debate surely you arent directing this claim at the President who has bravely and heroically stood up for individual rights and good governance?