SB - The Gun Control Act of 2017 (debating)

[Goldwater]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Atlasian People's House of Representatives
Passed 5-1 in the Atlasian House Assembled,

[/quote]

[Associate Justice PiT]

     We probably shouldn't require a license to sell firearms in order to buy firearms (which Section II seems to say under its current text).

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This bill is also unclear of what information is to be included on these IDs, and how much they cost people who wish to acquire one.  At some point, I think we should also use this bill as an opportunity to address the gunshow loophole, which I assume exists in our current system per being carried over from US law.  For now, I'll offer an amendment to clarify that the license requirement is only for individuals wishing to sell firearms.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

EDIT: WITHDRAWN - NEW AMENDMENT INCOMING

[Grumpier Than Thou]

This is a step in the right direction in resolving the gun crisis that plagues our nation. It has my support, provided that we take further steps to keep weapons out of the hands of potential criminals.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'm going to withdraw my previous amendment (which the PPT did not declare its adoption) and introduce a new one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Donerail]

I don't have any significant problems with this bill

[Associate Justice PiT]

I'm going to withdraw my previous amendment (which the PPT did not declare its adoption) and introduce a new one.

     I think that is the VP's job, since he opened the thread.

[Anna Komnene]

I'm a bit wary of the bar on violent ex convicts from purchasing/selling firearms.  I know it might sound hard to argue that "violent criminals" should have weapons, but I feel like if our justice system says that someone has served their time, they should be free and equal members of society just like everyone else.  If they are so violent that they can't be trusted not to hurt someone again, then they shouldn't (and ideally wouldn't) have been set free in the first place.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'm a bit wary of the bar on violent ex convicts from purchasing/selling firearms.  I know it might sound hard to argue that "violent criminals" should have weapons, but I feel like if our justice system says that someone has served their time, they should be free and equal members of society just like everyone else.  If they are so violent that they can't be trusted not to hurt someone again, then they shouldn't (and ideally wouldn't) have been set free in the first place.

I believe a reasonable case can be made that ex-convicts should have the same rights as anyone else once they've served their time, including self-defense and, by extension, gun ownership, much as I am uncomfortable with the prospect of allowing violent offenders (and especially repeat offenders) access to firearms.

With this in mind, what shall be done of people who have a history of multiple gun-related offenses except murder or other crimes which carry a life sentence?  For the sake of argument, let's consider someone who's hypothetically been convicted of conspiracy or intent to murder, or planned to commit nefarious acts against the government a la Timothy McVeigh?  What about extreme right-wing/separatist militias or Islamist groups with extensive records of violence or attempted violence?  Our laws ought to have deterrents in place to prevent violent or potentially violent individuals from acquiring dangerous firearms, keeping with the spirit of equality under the law for ex-cons.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Also, I would note that it's not unusual for felons to be subject to lifetime penalties of some form even after they've served time in prison.  For example, people convicted of sexual assault must not only serve time in jail but are also required to register as sex offenders when ever they relocate themselves in the country.  There is some debate over whether these laws should be reformed (especially for people convicted of minor sex offenses, such as statutory rape between minors), but there is never a guarantee that a person who completes a jail term may be absolved of all other  penalties.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

I'm a bit wary of the bar on violent ex convicts from purchasing/selling firearms.  I know it might sound hard to argue that "violent criminals" should have weapons, but I feel like if our justice system says that someone has served their time, they should be free and equal members of society just like everyone else.  If they are so violent that they can't be trusted not to hurt someone again, then they shouldn't (and ideally wouldn't) have been set free in the first place.

I respectfully disagree. I understand your point, but there is simply far too great a risk in allowing violent convicts to purchase weapons. Even if they have "served their time", there is no guarantee that they have been rehabilitated. This is not to say that ex-criminals who will not fall into a cycle of recidivism have no right to defend themselves or their property, but we often find that it takes so little for a violent person to be provoked, and then more innocent lives are lost.

And what about suicide rates among ex-cons? I am admittedly not incredibly knowledgeable about that topic, but a quick search yields a 2014 study from the Journal of Clinical Psychology that makes the following conclusion:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And this is just a study of Swedish prisoners.

We must be weary of the potential for violent criminals to commit more violent crimes while in the possession of a weapon, or even the potential for suicide.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I wonder if the various ways we other ex-cons (including but not limited to the revocation of gun ownership rights) is a contributing factor to recidivism and other ills that befall them. After all, nobody likes being denied equal respect with their peers.

[Anna Komnene]

I've been waffling on this a bit because I think everyone made good points, but I just don't like the idea of modifying what rights different citizens have based on what they've done during the course of their life.  When people are free from prison, their sentence is supposed to be over, not continuing to suffer penalties for the rest of their lives.  I think Senator PiT makes a good point that they might feel more isolated from the community and that might make them more likely to commit crimes.  Besides, if someone really wants to obtain firearms, they'll do that - we want people to be doing it through legal channels not illegal channels where we can't monitor anything.  I think it makes more sense to modify the kinds of weapons people can obtain and the kinds of ammo and places where they're allowed to use it and not allowed to.  But I don't think we can take away the right itself. 

Soooo, assuming Senator Scott's amendment was adopted, I'm going to propose this new one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Barnes]

Assuming that former Senator Siren's Amendment has been adopted, I move the following amendments of my own:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Wow, we messed this one up bigly, didn't we?

Not another word about amendments until we get a sponsor.  Any volunteers?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     As I said above:

I'm going to withdraw my previous amendment (which the PPT did not declare its adoption) and introduce a new one.

     I think that is the VP's job, since he opened the thread.

     Some clarification on this point would be nice, though.

[Goldwater]

Yeah, I don't think that any of the past amendment could have been adopted, considering there was no sponsor to declare the friendly or unfriendly.

[Barnes]

I will assume sponsorship of the bill to untangle the procedure here.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Senators have 24 hours to object to the sponsorship of Barnes.

We'll hammer out the amendment situation once we have a sponsor.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Hearing no objection, Barnes is now sponsor.  Amendments can now be introduced.

I will reintroduce my modified amendment to this bill.

[Barnes]

Right, let's untangle our web here. Senator Scott, this is the modified version of your amendment, correct?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

If that's the case, I will not object to its incorporation.


I'll also reintroduce my own amendment, to wit:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Yes.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Sorry about this.  Senators have 24 hours to object to both amendments.

(It's been a rough couple of days.)

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Hearing no objection, both amendments are adopted.

[Goldwater]

So, what are we doing here?