Constitutional Amendment to Right to Bear Arms

[Sam Spade]

Each individual has the inherent Right of owning, using, and carrying firearms, or arms of any other description that are capable of killing less than 100 people at one time with one instantaneous initiation of that weapon. Any weapon more effective than that is not permitted to be in the possession of any individual under this constitution.

That's a pretty unpleasant sentence to put in our federal constitution.

Given the way Bono usually looks at federal laws, I am willing to bet more likely than not this is to prevent courts from interpreting the law as they see fit.

For example, I could put replace the line with:  capable of killing less than 100 people at one time

with...

capable of killing massive amounts of people at one time

but there is a logic that says that that could be interpreted by the courts for whatever they see fit.

[Peter]

Is it just me, or does 99 people still seem a wee bit high. I mean, the only things capable of killing that many people with one "instantaneous initiation" of a weapon are going to be explosive in effect, and the sort of stuff that you are approaching for this sort of explosive effect is artillery shells and mortars.

In my opinion, this number needs to be moderated down somewhat.

[Gabu]

the sort of stuff that you are approaching for this sort of explosive effect is artillery shells and mortars.

Even then, the people would have to be clustered extremely close together.  I would personally agree that 100 is a bit too high.

[jokerman]

I think it's pointless to to define it in the constitution.  Let's just trust future Senates to justly and rightly define what a low-potency explosive is.

[Joe Republic]

Sam, I objected to having the word "killing" in our federal constitution more than anything else.

Anyway, can somebody please tell me what kind of self-defense tactic involves the simultaneous murder of 99 people?  If there is an answer to that, can you also tell me why it needs defining in our constitution?

[Gabu]

I think it's pointless to to define it in the constitution. Let's just trust future Senates to justly and rightly define what a low-potency explosive is.

can you also tell me why it needs defining in our constitution?

I think that their main concern is that leaving it up to the Senate will make the Senate define it in an oppressive manner or something.

[Peter]

With an active NRA and pro gun owner's rights constituency, I don't see any Senator that pushes for heavy and oppresive control on explosives lasting beyond the term they propose it.

Less than a year has passed since Marriage Equity; Had anybody asked me last November the effect of attempting to repeal it, I would have said exactly what you just said - it'll kill them come re-election.

My point - times change quickly in Atlasia, and you have to be here a while to realise it.

[Sam Spade]

Ok, I will propose this wording replace the entirety of the present wording in my amendment, as per Bono, but with my modifications:

Each individual has the inherent Right of owning, using, and carrying firearms, or arms of any other description that are capable of killing less than 100 people at one time with one instantaneous initiation of that weapon.  Any weapon more effective than that is not permitted to be in the possession of any individual under this constitution.

This I think is sufficient and keeps the military as whole out of this.  I am not quite libertarian enough on this issue to think that the military be included in these provisions, Bono.  If you have any other suggestions, I'm all ears, though.

(I obviously think it's important for the military to have bunker-buster bombs, nuclear weapons, etc.)

Given the rather negative reception this Amendment has received, I would like to withdraw it and propose something much simpler in its place.

Article VI, Clause 4 as defined in this Constitutional Amendment, shall be amended to read the following:

The right to keep and bear fire-arms and low-potency explosives shall not be infringed.

This is getting rid of the "Senate defines things" part of the clause and adds "keep" to the clause, something which I overlooked earlier.

[Gabu]

Given the rather negative reception this Amendment has received, I would like to withdraw it and propose something much simpler in its place.

Article VI, Clause 4 as defined in this Constitutional Amendment, shall be amended to read the following:

The right to keep and bear fire-arms and low-potency explosives shall not be infringed.

Okay, I open voting on this amendment.

All senators in favor, vote "aye"; all against, vote "nay".

[12th Doctor]

Aye

[MasterJedi]

Aye

[Peter]

Once again we have come upon a situation where an amendment to this legislation has been proposed and almost immediately come up to a vote, and whats worse but the time before it went to vote was probably some of the quietest in the day - I certainly didn't see it myself.

I cannot stress how bad I think it is for decision making for amendments to be moved directly to vote without giving Senators at least 24 hours to voice their views on the matter - and to then let debate flow its natural course before calling the vote.

I can't let this by-the-by attitude of the Senate continue, where it starts voting on things as important as this without really considering its consequences.

[Colin]

Aye

[Bono]

Once again we have come upon a situation where an amendment to this legislation has been proposed and almost immediately come up to a vote, and whats worse but the time before it went to vote was probably some of the quietest in the day - I certainly didn't see it myself.

I cannot stress how bad I think it is for decision making for amendments to be moved directly to vote without giving Senators at least 24 hours to voice their views on the matter - and to then let debate flow its natural course before calling the vote.

I can't let this by-the-by attitude of the Senate continue, where it starts voting on things as important as this without really considering its consequences.

I have to agree.

[jokerman]

aye

[MAS117]

Nay

[MAS117]

Can someone tell me what the point of owning a "low-potency explosives" besides for blowing sh**t up, and hurting other people? Adding this is useless. I'm all for not infringing on the right to bear arms, but low potency explosives is crossing the line. Why make it easier for terriosts to own explosives no matter how "low-potency" they are. Sure I not for banning fireworks and that crap, but just because it doesnt say "low-potency explosives" in the consitution doesnt mean thats illegal. I URGE ALL SENATORS TO VOTE NAY OR CHANGE THERE VOTE TO NAY.

[Sam Spade]

Once again we have come upon a situation where an amendment to this legislation has been proposed and almost immediately come up to a vote, and whats worse but the time before it went to vote was probably some of the quietest in the day - I certainly didn't see it myself.

I cannot stress how bad I think it is for decision making for amendments to be moved directly to vote without giving Senators at least 24 hours to voice their views on the matter - and to then let debate flow its natural course before calling the vote.

I can't let this by-the-by attitude of the Senate continue, where it starts voting on things as important as this without really considering its consequences.

I agree also.

There is specifically a section in the Official Senate Procedural Resolution which deals with this, saying that every Amendment must have at least 24 hours of debate time.  It's toward the beginning of Article 4, but I forgot where without looking at it directly.  Once we get debate on that thing, then this issue will go away.

Until then, I can only hope that Gabu gives every amendment 24 hours debate time.

[Sam Spade]

Aye to the amendment.

MAS, though I don't believe that anyone will try and restrict our rights now, I am also weary of remembering that the composition of the Country and our Senate changes over time.

As this time passes, we may see Senates that our more liberal than even the Third Senate, and I don't want to take that chance to let them have the chance to restrict the rights of fellow Atlasians.

[King]

Abstain on the amendment.

[Gabu]

Well, this amendment now has enough votes to pass, but given that we've had no time to debate things, I'm not closing voting yet.

Can someone tell me what the point of owning a "low-potency explosives" besides for blowing sh**t up, and hurting other people? Adding this is useless. I'm all for not infringing on the right to bear arms, but low potency explosives is crossing the line. Why make it easier for terriosts to own explosives no matter how "low-potency" they are. Sure I not for banning fireworks and that crap, but just because it doesnt say "low-potency explosives" in the consitution doesnt mean thats illegal. I URGE ALL SENATORS TO VOTE NAY OR CHANGE THERE VOTE TO NAY.

You're not for banning fireworks, but fireworks are a "low-potency explosive", so not having that term in there would leave the banning of fireworks wide open.

I personally think that this amendment could stand to be more specific (giving too much power to the courts is just as bad as giving too much power to the Senate), but I believe that what we currently have is a good start.  I may think of an amendment to what we'll have after Sam's amendment if I can figure out exactly what I feel it should say.

[Peter]

You're not for banning fireworks, but fireworks are a "low-potency explosive", so not having that term in there would leave the banning of fireworks wide open.

I think his point is that whilst this Amendment would guarantee the right to bear fireworks, it could arguably also guarantee the right to bear other things that we really shouldn't be granting a right to bear, probably mortars and other stuff that has a serious ability to do damage.

[Gabu]

You're not for banning fireworks, but fireworks are a "low-potency explosive", so not having that term in there would leave the banning of fireworks wide open.

I think his point is that whilst this Amendment would guarantee the right to bear fireworks, it could arguably also guarantee the right to bear other things that we really shouldn't be granting a right to bear, probably mortars and other stuff that has a serious ability to do damage.

Yes, I know; that's why I say that this could stand to be more specific than its current state.  I'm just saying that not including "low-potency explosives" would cover everything, including what he doesn't want banned.

[PBrunsel]

Aye on the amendment

[Sam Spade]

This amendment has passed and all dat.

Considering the contention of this amendment, I'm going to wait another day for more debate (thereby reaching the 5 day limit) before calling a motion.