Talk Elections

Sponsor: AustralianSwingVoter

24 hours to advocate.

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.

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

1. How should we define Assault Weapons?

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.

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.

I'll dive into this once I study for 2 tests that I need to ace to salvage my semester but restricting guns to the point where it affects everyone has limited returns, especially in today's polarized climate.

FWIW we likely have the money for a gun buyback program but I have serious reservations it's worth the return on investment anyhow.

But reaffiriming what I've said in private and in public before I will veto if I have the chance to. Despite not yet having operated anything more than a toy gun, I consider myself pro-gun. I am from an exurban area of an interior west state that unfortunately also was crushed when 59 people, including someone I barely knew in middle school and was friends with several of my friends in high school, lost their lives. I may be a liberal or at least considered on the left but I am not going to blindly agree with every hot button left wing issue. I am tired of seeing my twitter feed that is probably to the left of me as a whole come out and repeat the same talking points over and over anytime a mass shooting happens, and it got to a point where I realized that they were not doing anything except effectively dividing us up further. In order for government to succeed, all people need to have faith in our institutions, something that IRL (now how this line of thinking could apply to this game is an open question) has been declining for quite some time, and the last thing that we need, and do much in the case of a gun registry and an assault weapons ban, is to punish all gun owners, reduce their faith in government, and open the door for more far right militias all across Fremont, with guns now being purchased illegally on the black market.

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.

I clearly meant an issue that will actually do anything for people. Your uneducated position on guns does nothing to help people and is a disservice to the region.

To be honest I don't this bill itself is unconstitutional - just not good policy and I wouldn't expect the court to strike it down.

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.

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.

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.

It's perfectly fair to call out regional legislators when they are being uneducated jokes at the time they are acting as such.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And all 4 MPs are absolute trash legislators if they don't care about the details. This shouldn't be hard for you to understand.  Would you prefer me to make it clear to you with photos? Maybe do it in big, colorful letters?

You lack any basic knowledge necessary to understand exactly what you are banning and why, the proposed repeals and bans won't actually have the effects you think it will, and you clearly didn't bother thinking a single necessary detail important to this bill prior to introducing it. If you can't see it, then you and any MPs that support this hot, steaming pile of garbage should just do the region a favor and resign, and let people who can actually think run the region.

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. Details are important on every single bill, but especially those that involve controversial issues such as gun control.

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.

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:


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

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.

Seconded, I'll just draft up the amendment.

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

I urge my colleagues to review the proposed definition and suggest alterations.

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

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.

Yes, sustained rate of fire is relatively nebulous, but it's the more lenient of the two measures. Cyclic is perhaps too onerous. Of course, this is the initial draft and I will propose more precise language in the revision. I wouldn't be opposed to using terms within the manual.

The second point about banning practically any semiautomatic firearm, however, would not hold because of the other test included in part 1. Gas operated firearms will be perfectly fine; only direct impingement and open bolt firearms would be targeted.

So to clarify it is your position that my semiautomatic AK47 clone and my custom AR15 build, both of which contain gas pistons, will still be legal the next time I spend a week target shooting in Fremont?

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

I'll take that as a no.

I will reiterate that the goal of this legislation is to create regulations for manufacturers and not for hobbyists.

You should offer another amendment then to remove possession and use from what is being banned then.

Yes, that's a fair point, I'll offer up an amendment shortly.

I motion for section 3-1's wording be amended to 'manufacture and sale'.

Hold on.
Tomorrow that goes as I introduce the gun buyback and penalties.
I'm just waiting for the current amendment to be adopted without objections.

Aye

Thanks. As an FYI that absolves most of my concerns  and while I still dont support the measure I am significantly less hostile now.

Very well. Thank you for your contribution, and I hope my colleagues will similarly put forward their own suggestions.

My amendment to add Buyback and Penalties will hopefully be coming today.

Maybe not, though it is coming.
Also, can I just reaffirm that we cannot hold a final vote yes, as the bill still needs to be amended. And I will amend this bill soon, when I get some time off from all the assessments.

This is coming, soon. Eventually.

Change of plans due to a rescheduling of an exam.
The amendment on buybacks and penalties is probably coming on Saturday (Friday your time). Sorry all about the continued delay, but school unfortunately comes first. If I'm lucky I might get it in earlier, but that's unlikely.
Also, to the Speaker, I must insist that a vote not be held until this amendment is adopted.

Honestly ASV, just let this bad bill get killed so the legislature can move onto things that are actually important and actually help people. Next in the queue is legislation that helps those affected by CA wildfires, but that can't be brought to the floor because you're caught up in selfish pet projects like this.

Selfish AND constitutionally suspect ...

You can delegate that responsibility if you like. I would be able to write the proposed amendment.

Any problems with this amendment?
Have I missed anything?

This is federally preempted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

Okay then, I'll strike that.

Is there any other problems with my amendment?
Is there anything else we want to do?
If not, then we'll have a final vote soon.

24 hours without objections, the amendment is adopted.

One last amendment.

What does section 4.2 mean? I assume it's a typo of some sort?

This is why I need to proofread at a time other than 2am.
Now I need to remember what I was going to write there.

As stated elsewhere, I plan to vote no on this bill.  Since there has been no debate for six days and the original sponsor is no longer present, I call for a final vote.

Hold off for now. Is someone going to fix 4.2?

Eh, that doesn't matter as long as you guys just vote against this bill. ;)

Which I’m not sure will happen....

Mr. First Minister, I believe I can rewrite Section 4 and present an amendment on the floor shortly.

I really do hope my sudden departure won't impact the passage of this legislation. I really hope Parliament will pass this bill, and I know YE will veto it, so the region at large can vote on this important piece of legislation. If not, I guess I might bring it back when I come back. Maybe.

So are you all going to hold a vote soon?
Also, I do hope that this bill passes to referendum. If it fails to pass parliament solely because of my sudden resignation it shall be rather unfortunate.

Amendment is adopted.

This fell through the wayside.

As it's been far longer than 36 hours since ASV left, I think this is tabled.

That’s not how this works. The standing orders on the wiki are out of date; I don’t play the search for a new sponsor game.

So is there a new sponsor?

There doesn’t need to be since ASV already advocated and we don’t do sponsor feedback.

If there are no objections, we'll do a final vote in 24 hours.

OK, time for a final vote.

Members, you have 72 hours.

Nay

This fails 0-3.

Good riddance.

:)

It is deeply unfortunate that through both my and Joey's resignations, we have gone from a chamber which was 4-1 in favour of this legislation to 3-2 against.
However, this issue is now over. I am saddened that I wasn't able to pass this before I had to leave, but so be it. Whenever I do come back, I may very well try again on this issue.

As someone who tried time and time again to get an assault weapons ban passed at both the regional and federal level, all I can say is that I'm very disappointed with the outcome once again.