FT 3-05: Fremont Gun Safety Act

[Wikipedia delenda est]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Order! I call Mr. Wallace.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

The Fremont Gun Safety Act establishes various measures that seek to promote gun safety and reduce gun violence. Fremont currently has no gun control laws in the Fremont Statue, making this bill of the utmost importance and necessity.

This act uses multiple different methods to reduce gun violence, such as the establishment of background checks and permits and the prohibition of assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and open carry. All of these methods are proven to reduce gun violence.

This act also establishes that the violation of any of the said requirements is a crime. Additionally, this bill gives citizens affected by this act plenty of time to meet the requirements by not going into effect until a year after passage.

Currently, at the federal level of Atlasia, the Gun Control Act of 2017 is being debated. This bill is a big step in the right direction for Atlasia, but Fremont can go even further by passing the Fremont Gun Safety Act.

The Fremont Gun Safety Act will lead to a much higher level of gun safety in Fremont, and will do so without violating Section 5 of the Bill of Rights of the Fremont Constitution or Section 7 of the Bill of Rights of the Atlasian Constitution.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

A very thorough proposal: I do have some questions for the sponsor:

(1) With regard to the ban on possession of assault weapons in Section 2(3), what will happen with regards to citizens who already own these sorts of firearms? Will there be a buyback program, uncompensated confiscation, or will those who purchased assault weapons prior to August 2018 be allowed to keep them?
(2) How does the bill define "in public" with regard to Sections 2(5) and 2(7)? Does standing on my front lawn holding a squirrel gun constitute displaying a firearm in public? How does this effect public lands where hunting with firearms is currently legal?

[Wikipedia delenda est]

A very thorough proposal: I do have some questions for the sponsor:

(1) With regard to the ban on possession of assault weapons in Section 2(3), what will happen with regards to citizens who already own these sorts of firearms? Will there be a buyback program, uncompensated confiscation, or will those who purchased assault weapons prior to August 2018 be allowed to keep them?
(2) How does the bill define "in public" with regard to Sections 2(5) and 2(7)? Does standing on my front lawn holding a squirrel gun constitute displaying a firearm in public? How does this effect public lands where hunting with firearms is currently legal?

A buyback program will be instituted by the Commonwealth of Fremont. All citizens who own assault weapons will be encouraged to hand such weapons over to the Commonwealth of Fremont. In return, the Commonwealth will compensate citizens who do so with $100. It is recommended that all citizens who own assault weapons participate in this program. If they choose not to, even though they get compensation for doing so, they still must find a way to dispose of their weapons. A buyback program will also be instituted for high-capacity assault magazines, with citizens receiving $50 for turning such magazines over to the Commonwealth.

"In public" is defined as public property or public land. In the given example about somebody holding a gun on their front lawn, that is allowed because their front lawn is their private property. Use of firearms for the purpose of hunting on public lands where hunting is currently legal is permitted.

I propose the following amendment to reflect these clarifications:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Members shall have 24 hours to object to this amendment.

[Mr. Reactionary]

In return, the Commonwealth will compensate citizens who do so with $100. A buyback program will also be instituted for high-capacity assault magazines, with citizens receiving $50 for turning such magazines over to the Commonwealth.

Im not sure if its funnier that you think people will trade in an $900 gun for $100, or that you think a magazine costs half as much as the gun itself.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

The amendment moved by Mr. Wallace has been agreed to.

[Fmr. Representative Encke]

This needs a clear definition of 'assault weapon.'

[RFayette]

This needs a clear definition of 'assault weapon.'

Agreed.  This is a critical element needed to proceed.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

This needs a clear definition of 'assault weapon.'

Agreed.  This is a critical element needed to proceed.

I'll second this.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Alright then, I propose the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Members shall have 24 hours to object to this amendment.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I don't see any problems with this definition, though admittedly firearms are not my field of expertise. As RFayette is the member who requested a clarifying amendment, I wonder if he has any thoughts on the matter?

[RFayette]

OK, the amendment is fine.  As someone who is generally opposed to gun control, I will vote no on this legislation, but the definition is fine.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

The amendment proposed by Mr. Wallace has been adopted.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Seeing no further debate, I move for a final vote on this bill. Members shall have 24 hours to object to this motion.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Seeing no objection, we will now proceed to a final vote. Members will kindly vote AYE, NAY, or Abstain; voting will continue for 72 hours or until all Members have voted.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

I apologize again for not announcing the final vote on this bill. I have been busy, but that's no excuse. In my time left as Speaker, and if I am elected to the Senate, I will try to be much more punctual.

Aye

[RFayette]

Nay

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

This has been a difficult decision to reach, in no small part because it requires me to reconcile my understood duty, as an officer of the commonwealth, to "ensure domestic tranquility" with my belief, as a liberal, in the right of property. It has seemed to me the question at the balance is, does the right of private citizens to own what are here termed assault weapons infringe upon the ability of other private citizens to enjoy their own rights – specifically, the right to live.

On the one, it is evident that weapons in the hands of dangerous individuals can indeed pose a threat to domestic tranquility and the lives of innocents. It is for this reason that I have long supported efforts to strengthen laws regarding the buying and selling of firearms. I do not, and never have, believed that our constitutional right to keep and bear arms continues to the exclusion of all other rights; and so I consider it nothing short of irresponsible to neglect measures to ensure deadly weapons do not fall into the wrong hands. It is for this reason that I supported a program of universal background checks and a ban on the purchase of firearms by suspected terrorists while a candidate for president last year.

I am, however, uncomfortable with the extent to which this bill would disarm not only criminals and the mentally unstable, but also law-abiding gun owners. This strikes me as not unlike proposals to bar all Muslims from immigrating to Atlasia for fear that a tiny minority may be terrorists. In both cases, the solution is not a total moratorium on the dreaded thing, but a careful system of background checks and other measures designed to separate the peaceful from the violent.

For this reason, I cast my vote NAY.

[Mike Thick]

In return, the Commonwealth will compensate citizens who do so with $100. A buyback program will also be instituted for high-capacity assault magazines, with citizens receiving $50 for turning such magazines over to the Commonwealth.

Im not sure if its funnier that you think people will trade in an $900 gun for $100, or that you think a magazine costs half as much as the gun itself.

Sorry to butt in, but this. Buybacks are generally a good idea, but you need to buy at market prices so people want to sell.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

With 1 vote in favor, 2 votes in opposition, and 1 member not voting, this legislation has failed. The question is resolved in the negative.