Pacific Legislature Official Thread

[The Duke]

By a vote of 5-3, this act has passed.

I open voting starting now on the Protection of Commerce in Arms Bill and the Affirmative Action Abolition Bill.

[True Democrat]

Aye on both

[Alcon]

Aye on both.

[minionofmidas]

Nay on both

[AkSaber]

For the Protection of Commerce in Arms Bill, what does the phrase mean, "The seller negligently supplies the product to a person whom he knows, or reasonably should know, is likely to use said product in an unlawful manner involving unreasonable risk to others?" I'm wondering how would it be interperated.

[The Duke]

For the Protection of Commerce in Arms Bill, what does the phrase mean, "The seller negligently supplies the product to a person whom he knows, or reasonably should know, is likely to use said product in an unlawful manner involving unreasonable risk to others?" I'm wondering how would it be interperated.

You'll  be the one interpeting it, of course.  You're our chief judicial officer.

Have you taken the oath yet, btw?

[WMS]

Aye on both.

[Emsworth]

For the Protection of Commerce in Arms Bill, what does the phrase mean, "The seller negligently supplies the product to a person whom he knows, or reasonably should know, is likely to use said product in an unlawful manner involving unreasonable risk to others?" I'm wondering how would it be interperated.

Perhaps my former region will forgive me for interfering, but to clarify the meaning:

There is no way to determine whether a person actually knows or does not know something. If someone who is obviously insane (for example) wants to buy a gun, the store owner can claim that he does not actually "know" whether the individual is sane or not. However, if the person purchasing the gun shows obvious signs of delusion, then the store owner "reasonably should know" that he is not sane. The same line of reasoning applies when the purchaser is a young child, for example.

[Platypus]

Nay
Abstain

[AkSaber]

For the Protection of Commerce in Arms Bill, what does the phrase mean, "The seller negligently supplies the product to a person whom he knows, or reasonably should know, is likely to use said product in an unlawful manner involving unreasonable risk to others?" I'm wondering how would it be interperated.

You'll  be the one interpeting it, of course.  You're our chief judicial officer.

Have you taken the oath yet, btw?

Really? Cool!!

Nope, no oath yet.

Perhaps my former region will forgive me for interfering, but to clarify the meaning:

There is no way to determine whether a person actually knows or does not know something. If someone who is obviously insane (for example) wants to buy a gun, the store owner can claim that he does not actually "know" whether the individual is sane or not. However, if the person purchasing the gun shows obvious signs of delusion, then the store owner "reasonably should know" that he is not sane. The same line of reasoning applies when the purchaser is a young child, for example.

Oh oh oh oh oh. So it basically covers someone who is prohibited by law from buying a gun. Ok then. Thank you!!


Aye on both.

[The Duke]

For the Protection of Commerce in Arms Bill, what does the phrase mean, "The seller negligently supplies the product to a person whom he knows, or reasonably should know, is likely to use said product in an unlawful manner involving unreasonable risk to others?" I'm wondering how would it be interperated.

You'll  be the one interpeting it, of course.  You're our chief judicial officer.

Have you taken the oath yet, btw?

Really? Cool!!

Nope, no oath yet.

Lt. Governor is Chief Judicial Officer, so yeah.  Head on over to the government board and find the "Swearing in of New Office Holders" thread and take the oath.

[AkSaber]

For the Protection of Commerce in Arms Bill, what does the phrase mean, "The seller negligently supplies the product to a person whom he knows, or reasonably should know, is likely to use said product in an unlawful manner involving unreasonable risk to others?" I'm wondering how would it be interperated.

You'll  be the one interpeting it, of course.  You're our chief judicial officer.

Have you taken the oath yet, btw?

Really? Cool!!

Nope, no oath yet.

Lt. Governor is Chief Judicial Officer, so yeah.  Head on over to the government board and find the "Swearing in of New Office Holders" thread and take the oath.

Neat!! Thank you very much!

[The Duke]

The Protection of Commerce in Arms Bill has passed by a vote of 4-2.

I sign it.

xJohn Ford

The Affirmative Action Abolition Bill has passed by a vote of 4-1 with 1 abstention.

I sign it.

xJohn Ford

[The Duke]

Time for spending cuts!  With the election over, the distractions are gone and its time to buckle down.

Administrator Reduction Act

1. The Pacific Legislature empowers the Governor and the heads of the Regional Agencies to reduce the number of administrative position in the Pacific Government by 5%.

2. Estimated savings will be $800 million.

Salary Reduction Act

1. All salaries of Regional government employees shall be reduced by 5%.

2. Teachers shall be exempted from this act.

3. Law enforcement officers shall be exempted from this act.

4. Estimated savings will be $1.5 billion.

Consolidation Act

1. Whereas the operations of the Regional government are currently dispersed, and whereas it is beneficial to have them centralized;

2. The Agencies of the Regional Government shall have their headquarters relocated and consolidated into city of Sacramento.

3. Existing facilities shall be used where possible, and new facilities constructed when necessary.

4. This legislation will save an estimated $3.1 billion.

Total savings will be $5.4 billion.

And I wish to Amend our tax code:

Gambling Revenue Amendment to Tax Code

1. All casinos within the Pacific Region shall pay a 20% tax on their revenues

2. This tax is comparable to the level of tax that state government's placed on casinos prior to the unification of the tax code

3. Estimated Revenues are $3 billion


I open debate on all four bills.

[Platypus]

ad. red: how many jobs, approx., will be cut by this? 5% might seem smalll, but with regional government being a huge employer in the Pacific, that'll affect a lot of lives. How many?

sal. red. add a lower limit. IE, all regional governmental employees earning over, say,. $30,000 a year (adjusted for inflation) shall have...blah blah blah, although less then 5% for those earning less then $31,500 etc.

consolidation act-No, thanks. Rather, consodlidate each department in a different place. IE, have education in seattle, taxes and rev enue in nevada, health in portland, etc etc.

Otherwise, thousands of people who couldn't afford or don't want to live in San Francisco would lose their jobs, which is far worse then the loss of a potential 5 billion, which would of course be nice. But money will still be made through consolidation. As is, there is no way I can support this bill (it's not an act until it passes, btw).

gambling revenue...I think this is OK, but there are some things that must be considered: 1. Las Vegas. How would this affect tourism? 2. Will the government become 'addicted' to gambling revenue, as has happened in other countries?

1, I don't really know. 2, it's likely; very few governments try and stop gambling addiction if they need the revenue to keep the budget in the black. So, to limit the harm of this, I suggest we ban all gambling that relies on chance rather then skill (or a combination of the two). IE, sports betting, most card games etc. would be legal, but things like the pokies illegal.

[The Duke]

ad. red: how many jobs, approx., will be cut by this? 5% might seem smalll, but with regional government being a huge employer in the Pacific, that'll affect a lot of lives. How many?

sal. red. add a lower limit. IE, all regional governmental employees earning over, say,. $30,000 a year (adjusted for inflation) shall have...blah blah blah, although less then 5% for those earning less then $31,500 etc.

consolidation act-No, thanks. Rather, consodlidate each department in a different place. IE, have education in seattle, taxes and rev enue in nevada, health in portland, etc etc.

Otherwise, thousands of people who couldn't afford or don't want to live in San Francisco would lose their jobs, which is far worse then the loss of a potential 5 billion, which would of course be nice. But money will still be made through consolidation. As is, there is no way I can support this bill (it's not an act until it passes, btw).

gambling revenue...I think this is OK, but there are some things that must be considered: 1. Las Vegas. How would this affect tourism? 2. Will the government become 'addicted' to gambling revenue, as has happened in other countries?

1, I don't really know. 2, it's likely; very few governments try and stop gambling addiction if they need the revenue to keep the budget in the black. So, to limit the harm of this, I suggest we ban all gambling that relies on chance rather then skill (or a combination of the two). IE, sports betting, most card games etc. would be legal, but things like the pokies illegal.

As for the consolidation bill, I think its frankly an awful idea to have each of the departments in a different city.  There's no government in this country that does such a thing, and there's a reason.

I would be open to moving the Departments to Sacramento instead of San Fran, and that might actually turn out to be cheaper because they already have a lot of government buildings and its not wildly far from the Capital.

I don't expect the gambling tax to affect tourism because its nearly identical to the state tax on casinos already in place IRL.  If the IRL tax doesn't affect tourism, why would this tax?

As for salary reduction, I had no choice but to do it across the board because the data the GM and I had was sufficiently limited that there's no way to go through and find what the savings would be for a graduated salary reduction like that.

I'll have to ask the GM how many jobs would be cut by the administrative reduction program.

[WMS]

Sacramento I could live with. San Francisco is too expensive and is way too vulnerable to natural disasters.

[The Duke]

Sacramento I could live with. San Francisco is too expensive and is way too vulnerable to natural disasters.

Sounds like a consensus is forming behind Sacramento as the seat of the bureacracy.  That's more than fine with me, I had only selected San Fran because it is the capital (Don't blame me, I voted for San Diego).

[WMS]

Sacramento I could live with. San Francisco is too expensive and is way too vulnerable to natural disasters.

Sounds like a consensus is forming behind Sacramento as the seat of the bureacracy.  That's more than fine with me, I had only selected San Fran because it is the capital (Don't blame me, I voted for San Diego).

Excellent. San Diego would've been fun as well as a capital, but heck, all the capitals are out yonder from my perspective anyway.

[The Duke]

Excellent, Consolidation Act is amended as follows:

1. San Francisco shall be replaced by Sacramento as the seat of bureacracy

3. Savings estimate shall be changed to $3.1 billion

[WMS]

Excellent, Consolidation Act is amended as follows:

1. San Francisco shall be replaced by Sacramento as the seat of bureacracy

3. Savings estimate shall be changed to $3.1 billion

Hurrah!

[Platypus]

I still won't vote for it. It's going to destroy the economies of cities like Olympia, Santa Fe, Salem, Carson City and Juneau; and significantly affect other cities.

[Platypus]

I'd be happy to support the gambling revenue amendment bill, but I believe we should, at or near the time of passage, pass a bill limiting gambling in the region to games that include an element of skill only.

Re: salary reduction. There has to be a lower limit. Sam can make up numbers with an educated guess if he has to; but we shouldn't be taking 5% off someone who only earns, say, $20,000.

[The Duke]

Should I understand the lack of debate as a quiet agreement with the proposed legislation?

Any objections should be made here so the legislation can be amended.

[bgwah]

Sacramento is a terrible choice for capital.