SENATE BILL: Firearms Act of 2013 (Law'd)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:43:54 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  SENATE BILL: Firearms Act of 2013 (Law'd)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Author Topic: SENATE BILL: Firearms Act of 2013 (Law'd)  (Read 5303 times)
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 11, 2013, 08:41:28 PM »
« edited: April 10, 2013, 07:53:13 AM by Senator North Carolina Yankee »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Averroës Nix
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2013, 08:42:27 PM »

The sponsor has 24 hours to begin advocating for this.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2013, 09:28:16 PM »

I wholeheartedly support the introduction of a stricter gun licensing system, and like Nix has said, will certainly sign it if passed as an amendment to our Omnibus gun law.

Part of the ideas I supported during the campaign, but regretted never actually drafting a platform plank over, was including optional gun training courses as part of high school. Would the Senate be willing to entertain something like that?
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 12, 2013, 05:20:41 AM »

There are pretty obvious Constitutional issues with Section 5.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 12, 2013, 09:27:42 AM »

There are pretty obvious Constitutional issues with Section 5.

That's possible, but I would need to review Atlasian case law to know for sure. (I've searched, but I haven't found any weapons-related cases.)

I don't know if makes sense to cite pre-2004 Supreme Court rulings at all, but Robertson v. Baldwin seems to support an interpretation of the Second Amendment that would allow a ban on the carrying of concealed weapons:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The question that was the focus of this case is what we're now faced with in the context of Atlasian law - i.e. how do we interpret the right to "bear" weapons. For reference, here's the text of Article VI, Section 5, the relevant piece of the Third Constitution:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Using the precedent you cited, I find it plausible that there may be authority to ban a specific type of carry (say, concealed), but not to ban their carry (bearing, if you will) entirely, concealed and open.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 12, 2013, 12:59:06 PM »

Perhaps instead of "public place," the law could read "on federal property"?

That would pass muster, but wouldn't that extend it to the federal parks system and prevent hunting in those areas?
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 12, 2013, 03:46:07 PM »

If sections 1, 2, 5, 6, and most of 3 and 4 are cut out, I may consider supporting this bill.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 12, 2013, 04:12:35 PM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 12, 2013, 09:07:11 PM »

I oppose the amendment, of course. 5 is overly draconian, and 6 is unnecessary. 4 is the heart of the bill, as Nix has said, and so it can stay with reforms.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 12, 2013, 09:24:36 PM »

Perhaps instead of "public place," the law could read "on federal property"?

That would pass muster, but wouldn't that extend it to the federal parks system and prevent hunting in those areas?

It'd take a little bit of research on my part to write an exception that covered all of the relevant properties, but I'm in favor of preserving that right.

Just say the section shall not apply to members of the armed forces, federal officials, federal court properties, national forests, or for hunting or other lawful purposes.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 12, 2013, 10:49:05 PM »

I oppose the amendment, of course. 5 is overly draconian, and 6 is unnecessary. 4 is the heart of the bill, as Nix has said, and so it can stay with reforms.

Are you objecting to it then?
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 12, 2013, 11:48:29 PM »

I oppose the amendment, of course. 5 is overly draconian, and 6 is unnecessary. 4 is the heart of the bill, as Nix has said, and so it can stay with reforms.

Are you objecting to it then?

Yes I am.
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,203
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 13, 2013, 07:46:17 AM »

I am fine with sections 4 and (to a lesser degree) 5, but I don't know that I can support section 6; if the amendment fails, I would support an amendment that only added sections 4 and 5.
Logged
DemPGH
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 13, 2013, 07:49:32 AM »

I have no constitutional objections to section 5 - banning concealed and carry. I interpret "bear arms" to mean own them, not necessarily walk around armed, so I think you guys are on solid ground there.

Section 4 has two 4.2s, which could be a 2 and 2A sort of thing, but I think it's more likely a typo.

As it is currently printed, I have some reservations about 4.4 being a fairly serious breach of the privacy laws, especially if enforced, that exist in a number of the regional constitutions I have examined, and which I believe are are federally constitutional. If firearms are to be legal, which they are, I see it as an over-reach of authority without really good reason to mandate how they are to be stored. Firearms are to be used for defense as well, and if they are unloaded and locked in a cabinet, that seems to me to defeat the purpose.

Couldn't 3.1 simply be reduced to a degree of felony? And I will have to research before forming an opinion on section 6.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 13, 2013, 05:21:19 PM »

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Objection filed by Senator Snowstalker. A vote is now open on the above amendment, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 13, 2013, 09:26:02 PM »

Aye
Logged
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 13, 2013, 09:45:38 PM »

Abstain
Logged
DemPGH
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 13, 2013, 10:08:07 PM »

Yeah, I encourage you guys to move forward and I like your ideas; Nix, I definitely respect your reasons there. A negligence provision on section 6 would be a great idea and might take the place of 4.4, which is the only thing then that I'm iffy on. But we'll see how it plays out. Carry on!
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,720
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 13, 2013, 10:57:23 PM »

Abstain

Honestly, I have a lot of fundamental issues with this bill. I don't want to impede discussion, but I just don't think there's any way I could be brought on board. A new license for each weapon? Regulating how people store their weapons? A 40-hour course? No concealed carry?

Look, if this is going to be the direction Atlasia goes with guns, you might as well ban guns completely. The point of having guns in society is so they can be used for self-defense. This bill removes that function. So now we'll still have guns legally circulating amongst the public, but we'll have no way to legally defend against them. If you ask me, this bill is dangerous, unconstitutional, expensive, and intrusive on the rights of regions.
Logged
Kaine for Senate '18
benconstine
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,329
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 14, 2013, 07:59:46 AM »

Aye
Logged
Chancellor Tanterterg
Mr. X
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,203
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 14, 2013, 01:42:55 PM »

Aye

Voting this down would only block an attempt to reconcile the original bill with existing law. Even if you can't see yourself voting for this bill in any form, I encourage you to vote in this amendments favor so that we can more coherently discuss this bill, which will see many further alterations.

Fair enough, aye
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: March 14, 2013, 07:50:13 PM »

AYE
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: March 14, 2013, 07:55:28 PM »

Aye on the Amendment!!!

For the sake of moving the bill in a more functional direction if for no other reason.

Though, I do share a lot of the concerns that Senator Hagrid has expressed.
Logged
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: March 16, 2013, 12:34:01 PM »

My apologies for my limited presence in this debate thus far. I am in the process of moving and am struggling to maintain what activity I have been able to. That said, there is no way I can support allowing law enforcement to carry if the general population cannot. Law enforcement is a profession, not a higher level of being. For every Adam Lanza there is a Chris Dorner.

I understand this only applies to federal property. What is the purpose?
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: March 16, 2013, 12:48:22 PM »

My only remaining concern is with Section 4, Clause 6: is there a simple renewal process or do you have to go through the entire process again?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.051 seconds with 13 queries.