PA1: Reinstatement of the Pacific Protection of Commerce in Arms Act [passed]

[Türkisblau]

Reinstatement of the Pacific Protection of Commerce in Arms Act

1. Section 1 of the Accountability for Merchants of Death (Pacific) Act 2015 is hereby repealed.

2. This legislation will take effect on June 1, 2015.

[Türkisblau]

I support this, as although I support longer waiting periods as well as background checks, I don't see how penalizing manufacturers for what happens with their products is very prudent. I believe that this legislation has shut down legitimate industry in our region and needs to be repealed. I hope that I have my fellow councilors' support.

[Cranberry]

If I may, I would once again like to speak before the Council.

I would guess the act that would be reinstated should, for easier accesibility, be posted here:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can see your points, Mr. Speaker, but would not you think that this law (the Protection of Commerce in Arms Act, to be precise) exempts especially manufacturers, but also sellers of weapons, to an unreasonable extent? Unless these three specifically mentioned cases occur, they are exempt from any viabilty, under whichever circumstance (but those three). The repeal of this bill did not mean they were made responsible for virtually anything related to usage of their weapons. No court did and will prosecute them in any case where it is reasonably apparent that manufacturers and sellers are not responsible for the incident occured with their weapons. But, what if there is a situation where they can reasonably be made responsible, but none of those three specifically mentioned situations apply? Under this act re-instated, the presiding judge will have no choice but to discharge them.

[Türkisblau]

But how do we recognize those other instances without jailing or charging a seller or manufacturer just because someone else used what they manufactured/sold to commit a crime? I was in the Council when the Protection of Commerce in Arms Act was repealed and my questions regarding that occurring were ignored or pushed aside and it was passed anyway (despite my strong nay.)

That is what I assumed the law (Accountability for Merchants of Death [Pacific] Act 2015) to allow and what I still think that the law allows. The Protection of Commerce in Arms Act, in some form, must be reinstated.

[Cranberry]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Since we all are not sufficiently enough legally scholared, that would be up to the courts to decide in individual cases. Without significant evidence that the manufactures/sellers are in a way responsible or at least can be held liable, no court in the Pacific will sentence them to anything. The PoCiA-Act however leaves a dangerous scenario in that that besides these three specifically mentioned scenarios, manufactures and sellers can not be made liable, even when there is signifcant evidence present that they very well could. This is where this is coing at, in my opinion: a situation where it is up to courts to decide freely and individually, or a situation where we give manufatcures/sellers basically a free pass besides three specifically mentioned circumstances.

[Simfan34]

I am in agreement with the Senator.

[Türkisblau]

Seeing as debate seems to have ended, we will be going into voting procedure on this legislation in 12 hours of this post.

[Türkisblau]

Voting begins immediately on this legislation and will end in 48 hours.

[Türkisblau]

Aye

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Aye

[Cranberry]

I hope I am not disrupting the voting process, but I would like to urge the Governor to veto this bill, as I believe this, if passed, would entail severe consequences in regards to such a potentially dangerous area as is the sale and retail of lethal weapons.

[Türkisblau]

This bill has passed with 2 ayes and 1 not voting.