Talk Elections

Sponsor: S019
Status: Debating

LC 5.6 has been introduced to the floor and debate shall last no less than 72 hours.

Not sure why SNJC felt the need to reintroduce a bill that the council unanimously voted to table last session...

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=335266.0

This is a commonsense and ambitious proposal which seeks to keep dangerous weapons off of our streets. The time has come for common sense gun reform in Lincoln. This bill seeks to attain that and move us closer to our goal of a safer Lincoln. I urge the Council to vote AYE on this bill.

Everything that could be reasonably defined as common sense gun control already exists in Lincoln under the Firearms Safety Act (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Firearms_Safety_Act). Any Councillors interested in the very many negatives of this bill should simply read the debate on this exact bill (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=335266.0) from the last Council session. And I should note Councillors OneJ and Pragmatist both voted to table this last session.

For what it's worth, my opinion on this hasn't really changed since the last session, so I won't vote aye on it.

Just quoting some debate to help any Councillors make their mind up.

Most problematic is the concept that someone who produces something is responsible if someone uses that product in a criminal manner. Should knife manufacturers pay compensation if someone stabs someone using a kitchen knife they manufactured? Should a Garden Tool manufacturer be responsible if someone buys their tools and uses them to dismember a body?
And the tax rates are not only absurdly high but illogical. On what grounds are Shotguns taxed the lowest, while Rifles are taxed at 50%.

Lincoln already has mandatory Background Checks. Lincoln already has concealed carry. Lincoln already bans sales of firearms to minors. These proposed additional measures are counterproductive and will do far more harm than good.


Also, a couple thoughts on the Gun bill from a Game Engine perspective as the Deputy GM-nominate:
the high tax rates on guns would certainly lead to an enormous black market, and would really undermine current gun control policies already in effect.
Suing gun manufacturers would establish an illogical legal precedent than if you manufacture something you are responsible for if someone buys it and uses it in a criminal manner.
Banning possession of automatic weapons would definitely cause enforcement problems and if anything might encourage a black market for those weapons
I can't think of any problems around the normal parts of the AWB. It's certainly a divisive policy but there wouldn't be major implications from it
In short, the AWB is normal but everything else won't actually reduce the rate of gun crime and will only make guns a black market product and thus more potent and more dangerous, just like alcohol during the prohibition.

An AWB would absolutely create a black market, and suggesting it wouldn't is silly. That's also operating under the assumption that people who already own one are willing to give them up, which you know they won't.

As I did say, from a GM perspective banning possession is certainly going to create problems with effective enforcement.
And on the AWB, America had an AWB for a decade from '94-'04 and there are AWBs in effect in 7 states and DC. The overwhelming weight of evidence is that AWBs are generally ineffective in actually reducing the rate of gun crime. Meanwhile there isn't much evidence of large black markets as assault weapons aren't particularly useful or effective to anyone who needs a gun.
If you ban Assault Weapons nothing happens because Assault Weapon ownership is pretty small and the definition is inherently a meaningless line in the sand. The small demand that there is for Assault Weapons just moves to other almost identical firearms that barely squeeze under the definition and are  basically identical in power anyway.

It's also worth noting that SNJC is incorrectly defining assault weapons under this bill as any semiautomatic firearm. Almost every modern gun in the hands of civilians is semiautomatic. You cannot possibly argue that is reasonable and can be enforced.

Yes the definition of assault weapons is pretty illogical. Basically all modern American consumer firearms would qualify as "Assault Weapons" under this legislation.

Do any councilmembers have anything to add?

I’m sorry I was away, I had some real life things to do



Incorrect, this bill specifies that assault weapons are only semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns, which can accept detachable magazines, as well as revolving cylindrical shotguns, and weapons that have a folding or collapsible stock, a bayonet lug, a threaded barrel, a grenade launcher, or a barrel shroud.

Either way, I don’t have anything else to add and will motion for a final vote

It should also be noted that Section 4, the legal liabilities for gun manufacturers, is unenforceable due to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act) which was passed by RL congress before reset and hasn't been amended, repealed or superseded post-reset and so therefore almost certainly overrides §4.

Edit, the resident legal scholar is in agreement.
()

Yeah, Section IV is probably something that cannot be done regionally, so I will object to the motion for a final vote, so that an amendment can quickly fix this minor issue.

Why amend something that has no chance of passing anyway?

As none of the councilors have objected, a final vote on the objection has now opened.

AYE

Aye

Aye.

The ayes have it and the objection has passed.

Proposing an amendment

I support this amendment

Councilmembers have 48 hours to vote AYE, NAY, or ABSTAIN on the last amendment introduced by Chancellor S019.

AYE

Aye

Aye.

The ayes have it and the amendment has passed.

Motion for a final vote

Councilors have 24 hours to object the motion.

The objection period has closed and councilors now have 48 hours to vote AYE, NAY or ABSTAIN.

AYE!

Aye

Not sure why you voted in favor of something you voted down the previous session, especially when none of the issues from the last bill were resolved in this one.

Did you forget about why the bill was bad?

For example:

()

Some other important bits that someone who voted this down last session seems to have forgotten about:

Nay.

The aye's have it and the bill passes 2-1.

Aye: 2 (S019, Pragmatist_TNAG)
Nay: 1 (OneJ_)
Abstain: 0

And this is why you don't let people who are horribly uneducated about gun issues write bad bills or have the ability to vote for and sign off on something they clearly don't understand (in fact, the Governor understands so little, he signed the wrong version of the bill).

It's a shame how far Lincoln has fallen.

I mean, you could always try and sue claiming this is unconstitutional. Mr R did threaten to do so with the previous gun bill.

Or to win an election and repeal the bill :P

Still worth pointing out that one of that Pragmatist_TNAG clearly must have lost his memory (or just doesn't pay attention), and the fact that SNJC and Jimmy know absolutely nothing about gun issues.

It's a shame that the Labor Party pushes people like that.

I am so proud of my region for supporting this landmark legislation, and for passing it into law.

Thank you for your hard work.

Thank you Governor and legislators for having the courage and for having the forward thinking for passing this groundbreaking and life saving legislation.