SB 2017-077: Common Sense Gun Control Act (Passed)

[Associate Justice PiT]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator LLR (Lab-CO)

     I hereby open the floor for debate.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Due to the very low number of crimes that are committed annually with "assault weapons," I am deeply skeptical of sections 1b and 1c, though I do support much of the rest of the legislation.  I'm proposing an amendment to strike 1b and 1c from the package:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[LLR]

The amendment is friendly

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Senator Scott, with all due respect, the number of crimes committed with assault weapons does not outweigh the volume of carnage that they are capable of creating. We must listen to the parents who have lost children in school shootings, like the parents of the 20 children killed in the Sandy Hook massacre roughly 5 years ago, who tell us the same thing that this bill said: military-style weapons do not belong in the homes of ordinary citizens who have no use for them.

I am all for Atlasians' rights to own handguns and smaller capacity weapons--these are useful for self defense and hunting purposes--but no one has any practical use for a weapon capable of causing multiple deaths in a single pull of the trigger. There is no purpose in hunting for that. There is no purpose in self defense for that.

This is more about preventing the next Sandy Hook than it is about the actual number of crimes committed with these weapons. Very few deaths are caused every year domestically by bombs, but those are still illegal because of the casualties they could commit.

[Associate Justice PiT]

      I was actually going to propose exactly that amendment. The issue with the AWB is that it bans cosmetic features of guns that have little to do with their practical function. It is red meat for gun control advocates and little more.

     Senator R2D2, are you objecting to the amendment?

[Grumpier Than Thou]

      I was actually going to propose exactly that amendment. The issue with the AWB is that it bans cosmetic features of guns that have little to do with their practical function. It is red meat for gun control advocates and little more.

     Senator R2D2, are you objecting to the amendment?

I will object to the amendment.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

As a real-life native of Sandy Hook and someone who lived through the massacre and met people who knew someone that lost their life in that attack, I understand completely why people feel that strict gun control measures are needed.  And I agree that there needs to be reform.  But I would note that most existing gun laws, including assault weapons bans, would not have prevented tragedies like the massacre in Sandy Hook.  These guns were legally owned and the Bushmaster - that being the rifle used by the perpetrator (along with a Glock pistol) - did not fall under the original assault weapons ban.  In fact, it was designed with the intention of bypassing the 1994 ban.  As PiT said, the main distinction between regular guns and "assault guns" is appearance, and I do not feel that a ban would have a noticeable impact on the number of gun deaths in Atlasia per year.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Then we need to have a debate on what constitutes an "assault weapon." Magazine capacity is usually the go-to in differentiating between a necessary weapon for self-defense and a weapon quite literally capable of overkill.

Besides, even if one less life is lost because high capacity magazine weapons are banned, then at least some progress is made. It's a net gain for a family that stands to lose a loved one because of a weapon that has literally no purpose in the hands of a non-military civilian.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     A vote is now open for 72 hours on the amendment proposed by Senator Scott. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

[LLR]

Aye

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Nay

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Aye.

[Leinad]

Aye

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Aye. This amendment has enough votes to pass. Senators have 24 hours to change their votes.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     The amendment is adopted.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I will propose an amendment to lift the round limitation a little:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     It can be surprisingly difficult to hit someone in the excitement of a firefight and you often need multiple hits to stop an assailant. While nobody should need a drum magazine for self-defense, 10 bullets might not be enough to do that, especially if faced with multiple attackers. I suggest bumping the limit up to 15 (also a fairly common magazine capacity), which is still reasonable for self-defense purposes.

[LLR]

The amendment is also friendly

[Donerail]

I move to strike section 3 and renumber accordingly.

There are no rigorous studies evaluating the effectiveness of SROs and some pretty horrifying examples of SROs abusing students. In general, I believe that every measure should be taken to prevent children from ending up in the criminal justice system. More SROs, by shifting discipline from detentions to arrests, expands the school-to-prison pipeline and runs contrary to that goal.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     What is the sponsor's response to Senator SJoyce's amendment?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I will go ahead and give Senators 24 hours to object to this amendment.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     The amendment is adopted.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Any more comments? If not, I will take this to a final vote in 24 hours.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     A final vote is now open on this bill. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Aye.

[Classic Conservative]

There is no such thing as common sense gun control, if anything we should make it easier to procure firearms and explosives in this great nation!