FT 9-05: Fremont Assault Weapons Ban Act (Final Vote)

[AustralianSwingVoter]

I urge the chamber to look favourably on this bill.
This bill will introduce an assault weapon ban for the entirety of the region of Fremont. Such actions will prevent hundreds, nay thousands of deaths each year.
Before we pass this though, we do need to agree on the definition of an assault weapon. I did not define the term, as I felt that the entire chamber needs to agree on the term, as how we define it greatly affects the coverage of the bill.
Although it is basically certain that YE will veto this bill, given that he has stated he will, this is if anything better, as it allows us to conduct this debate with the entire public, rather than just between the 5 of us.
Thank you all, and I urge you all to vote Aye on this bill.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

So, everyone, I need you to answer this one questions on possible changes:

1. How should we define Assault Weapons?

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Such actions will prevent hundreds, nay thousands of deaths each year.

Lol wut? Thats clearly bogus. Assault weapons make up like 2% of all gun homicides in Atlasia. In 2016 the FBI reported 374 homicides by ANY rifle, and thats for the entire country.

This moronic bill would do nothing but turn millions of citizens into criminals. You think survivalists and right wing types in Idaho and Montana are gonna just turn over their guns? You gonna do cabin to cabin searches of the entire vast backwoods of Fremont? There are millions of assault weapons in private hands. This wont prevent any deaths. It might actually increase them if you try confiscation between increased armed standoffs with law enforcement and provoked right wing militia types. This bill is retarded and I will sue if this or any similar garbage bill passes.

Firstly, I am truly shocked that you could possibly oppose this bill. Who would have thought you would oppose gun control?
/s
Anyway, you are taking a little bit of hyperbole waaaaay to seriously. I said hundreds/thousands because I couldn't find a straight answer, and don't completely trust FBI numbers at the moment.

Anyway, I will probably amend this to include a gun buyback scheme, and limited grandfathering, and to make it clear that criminal penalties for possession are only activated if the firearm in question is used in an unlawful manner. Something along those lines.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

A gun buyback program is EXTREMELY irresponsible looking at it from a financial standpoint. Not to mention incredibly ineffective.

Banning assault weapons will not even come remotely close to achieving the goal you think it will. That's just facts.

We have a surplus of over $300 Billon. Money isn't a problem.

Also, I know it won't completely stop gun violence. But it will lessen it. And really, given the right to bear arms, this is probably as far as we can go on a regional level without the courts striking it down.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

A gun buyback program is EXTREMELY irresponsible looking at it from a financial standpoint. Not to mention incredibly ineffective.

Banning assault weapons will not even come remotely close to achieving the goal you think it will. That's just facts.

We have a surplus of over $300 Billon. Money isn't a problem.

Also, I know it won't completely stop gun violence. But it will lessen it. And really, given the right to bear arms, this is probably as far as we can go on a regional level without the courts striking it down.

It will barely put a dent in gun deaths, because the vast majority of them do not involve an assault weapon. And if you were a halfway decent elected official, you'd find better things to do with that $300 billion that actually helps people than trying to push a garbage buyback program that will not work.

I would do more, but given Article I §6 there isn't much more we could legally pass. Mr. R. is already going to sue over this bill.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Out of state Federalist agitators do not belong in this discussion. I urge all Fremonters to ignore their agitation.

Maybe, but I've got my signature from Mr R in this thread, plus no end of entertainment.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Out of state Federalist agitators do not belong in this discussion. I urge all Fremonters to ignore their agitation.

And I urge all Fremonters to ignore an MP that clearly doesn't care about their rights.

Why do you care now? Save up all your anger for the inevitable referendum when YE vetoes this.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

It's been my practice when I was speaker and this was largely maintained when Scott was speaker and I was FM to not ask non-MP's to shut up. To be fair it's open to the speaker to maintain the standing orders but I don't want this thread to get too out of hand.

I don't see any problem with non-MPs debating in the thread. Especially given you are the only pro-gun MP.
But far more importantly, this bill will be going to a referendum. Therefore this bill will be debated publicly, and I think it's good to get that debate started early.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Also people, we really need to decide how to define assault weapons.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

An amendment just to make it clear we have to define Assault Weapons

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Section 3: Assault Weapons Ban

1. The manufacture, sale, possession and use of Assault Weapons within the Commonwealth of Fremont is hereby illegal.

2. The sale and use of silencers or suppressors on guns in Fremont is hereby illegal.

Section 4: Definitions

1. Assault Weapons are defined as

Section 4 5: Implementation
1. This act shall be implemented immediately.
[/quote][/quote]

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Wait, you didn't write this bill with a definition of "assault weapons" in mind? What exactly were you planning on banning?

Because I want my colleagues input on how to define it. I want agreement and consensus on what the ban should cover.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

1. The fact that you wrote this without a way to define assault weapons shows how much of a giant dumpster fire this trash bill really is.
2. What is the purpose of banning silencers and suppressors? Please do yourself a favor and watch a few videos showing how they work. If you still think they should be banned after knowing they don't work like the movies and video games make you think, you are just ignorant.
3. If you're going to make something illegal, you need to be able to clearly state the penalties for sale, use, and possession of said illegal items. Another reason this steaming pile of s**t legislation should just be tossed.
4. Really all of the things you want to repeal and ban are poorly thought out and don't actually do what you think they'll do.

ASV, you're making your region look bad.

1. I didn't write the definition myself because I want to encourage debate on how to define it. If I had written the definition we wouldn't have any debate on the merits of the specific extent of the definition.
2. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
3. That's coming soon via amendment. I want to get the definition of Assault Weapons agreed on first.
4. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Seriously though people, I've been nagging you all via PMs to try and start some debate on how to define Assault Weapons.
We can't get onto penalties and sorting out the buyback until we agree on the definition, as how broad the term is defined affects both issues.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Seriously though people, I've been nagging you all via PMs to try and start some debate on how to define Assault Weapons.
We can't get onto penalties and sorting out the buyback until we agree on the definition, as how broad the term is defined affects both issues.

Generally when a bill is this bad and no one will give input, that's a clear sign that it should be killed. 

Oh no, I've privately had great support and input on these measures from my colleagues.
However I'd have to say that the time difference does make detailed conversation and debate harder. Nonetheless, I shall persevere, and tomorrow once my amendment to put the definition section passes without objections, I'll force a vote on an amendment with my preferred wording of the definition.
I'm doing it this way just to see if anyone else has any definition in mind.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Seriously though people, I've been nagging you all via PMs to try and start some debate on how to define Assault Weapons.
We can't get onto penalties and sorting out the buyback until we agree on the definition, as how broad the term is defined affects both issues.

Generally when a bill is this bad and no one will give input, that's a clear sign that it should be killed. 

It's also a sign that no one gives a f*k and just wants to vote Aye, Nay, and abstain and then every 3 months campaign to zombie voters on why they should be re-elected.

I've always personally defined an assault weapon as an AR-15 but I really am not a crucial vote given I'm basically set on vetoing this.

I wholeheartedly agree Mr. First Minister.
It seems that we have all decided how we shall vote on this bill, and therefore aren't putting in the effort to actually debate the nitty gritty, such as how to define the term Assault Weapon.
I'm dragging this out because of hope that, overnight, any of you will state your preferred definition (also, thanks for that Mr FM, although I would have to say that personally I think the definition should be broader), because I would rather like us to actually debate what should and should not count as an assault weapon.
That is a problem. We have all decided how we're going to vote anyway, and have all given up on debating how best to word the legislation.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Define Assault weapon as guns that shoot flaming chainsaws wrapped in barbed wire.

I'll certainly make sure that such weapons will be covered under the definition.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Seriously though people, I've been nagging you all via PMs to try and start some debate on how to define Assault Weapons.
We can't get onto penalties and sorting out the buyback until we agree on the definition, as how broad the term is defined affects both issues.

Generally when a bill is this bad and no one will give input, that's a clear sign that it should be killed. 

Oh no, I've privately had great support and input on these measures from my colleagues.
However I'd have to say that the time difference does make detailed conversation and debate harder. Nonetheless, I shall persevere, and tomorrow once my amendment to put the definition section passes without objections, I'll force a vote on an amendment with my preferred wording of the definition.
I'm doing it this way just to see if anyone else has any definition in mind.

You know you're a terrible legislator when...

Seriously, you already said you've PMed folks and no one wants to debate with you. If you were a smart person, you'd get the hint and just drop it.

No, it isn't that.
All 4 MPs are in favour of gun control (YE is opposed to it). They have spoken in favour of this bill in this thread and in the gun control resolution thread.
However, none of us really care about the details. We just want to vote Aye or Nay and be done with it.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Seriously though people, I've been nagging you all via PMs to try and start some debate on how to define Assault Weapons.
We can't get onto penalties and sorting out the buyback until we agree on the definition, as how broad the term is defined affects both issues.

Generally when a bill is this bad and no one will give input, that's a clear sign that it should be killed. 

Oh no, I've privately had great support and input on these measures from my colleagues.
However I'd have to say that the time difference does make detailed conversation and debate harder. Nonetheless, I shall persevere, and tomorrow once my amendment to put the definition section passes without objections, I'll force a vote on an amendment with my preferred wording of the definition.
I'm doing it this way just to see if anyone else has any definition in mind.

You know you're a terrible legislator when...

Seriously, you already said you've PMed folks and no one wants to debate with you. If you were a smart person, you'd get the hint and just drop it.

No, it isn't that.
All 4 MPs are in favour of gun control (YE is opposed to it). They have spoken in favour of this bill in this thread and in the gun control resolution thread.
However, none of us really care about the details. We just want to vote Aye or Nay and be done with it.

I think you got my views wrong.

While you are most certainly correct in my support of gun control, I do care about the details of this bill. This bill clearly needs multiple amendments for me to even consider voting for it. I'm not voting for any legislation, even if it's policy I support on surface level, that I believe has major flaws.

As it stands, I would vote no on this bill which clearly needs multiple amendments as it stands, most obviously an actual definition of "assault weapons."

Indeed Mr. Speaker, quite obviously my bill still needs amendments.
That was always and is still my plan. I would like the houses consensus on the definition of an assault weapon, rather than just deciding upon it myself.
Likewise, obviously this bill is incomplete, because that was always and is still my plan.
I would like the chamber to agree on what penalties are required and whether or not a gun buyback is appropriate.

I shall object to any vote on this bill until we agree by consensus and amend accordingly until this bill is complete.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

And I recommend MPs not worthy of any respect actually bother to think for once in this session. Nothing about my statements are outrageous, it's simply the truth about what you guys are doing.  Don't like what I'm saying? Don't introduce and support stupid and poorly written pieces of legislation.

I must say though, fhtagn has performed a vital role. Although she has been irritating, the fact is that we don't have anyone in this parliament (YE sort of, but not really) who is bringing the pro-gun view to the table. That is a concern, and I hope next election at least 1 true conservative is elected to properly represent the views of the right-wing in this chamber.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

I find that such tactics from out of state agitators are unsavory, to say the least. I recommend that the respected former member of the House seek to win another election before making outrageous comments about myself and my colleagues.

As it stands, I have developed a draft definition for the term 'Assault Weapon'. Note that the goal of this legislation is not to prohibit hunting, gun crafting, accessorizing, modifying, or experimentation, where hobbyists see fit. To this end, I have created a stricter definition:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I also motion that sections 2-4 and 3-2 be struck from this bill.

Seconded, I'll just draft up the amendment.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Section 3: Assault Weapons Ban

1. The manufacture, sale, possession and use of Assault Weapons within the Commonwealth of Fremont is hereby illegal.

2. The sale and use of silencers or suppressors on guns in Fremont is hereby illegal.

Section 4: Definitions

1. Assault Weapons are defined as
1. The following test shall be applied to determine whether or not a weapon is defined as an Assault Weapon

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Section 5: Implementation
1. This act shall be implemented immediately.
[/quote][/quote]

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Once the 24 hours is up I'll sort out penalties and the gun buyback.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

If no one has any problems, then after the 24 hours I'll introduce penalties and the buyback through amendment.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Sustained rate of fire is too nebulous a measure, as its just a ballpark estimate of what a typical trained soldier can fire. When I googled it, some AR15 manuals boast 45 RPM but Wiki said 12-15 RPM is more accurate. Are you going to rely on manuals? Because they will deliberately underreport. Are you going to randomly pick a National Guardsman and let him set the sustained RPM pace? How "scientific".

With a semiautomatic rifle the RPM should be relatively uniform. If you can sustain a rate of fire of 30 trigger pulls/reaiming with an AR15, you can def sustain that rate of fire with a.22 that has almost no recoil. Or .22s are guns for babies. This would ban practically any semiautomatic firearm including .22 hunting rifles as well as any semiautomatic handgun.

Have you got any better ideas?
If not go and heckle someone else.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Have you got any better ideas?
If not go and heckle someone else.

The better idea is not to pass stupid laws banning things you clearly know nothing about.

I'll take that as a no.