Talk Elections

Upon the passage of this bill:

1. Any Atlasian citizen who registers with the government may carry a concealed handgun no larger than 9mm.

2. The Atlasia government shall institute a 10-20 Life law to prosecute those who commit gun crimes.Click Here (http://www.dc.state.fl.us/secretary/press/1999/1020life.html) to read the real law.

3. If any Atlaisan citizen uses a concealed handgun in self defense it must be proven by a court of law. If it is ruled that they weren’t acting in self defense they will be charged based on the 10-20-Life Law.

If you wish to add to this bill I am open to suggestions! Let the debate begin! :)



This bill was proposed before me by MasterJedi

*you know the drill*

I am opposed to this act; there's no reason for anyone to have to carry a concealed firearm.

Harry and verin,

You won't even consider 10-20-Life or did you not even read it?

We should have that anyway.

We should have that law, yet still not allow concealed weapons.

Exactly :)

I encourage every Atlasian Senator to vote to pass this bill!

I strongly endorse this legislation and encourage my District 4 Senator to change his mind :)

Why would anyone ever need to carry on concealed weapon?  If you must have one, why must you conceal it?

Under this bill, if the weapon is cleared with the government, I could bring it into a mall, a supermarket, a football game, etc, am I correct?

I would see no argument against it unless a particular establishment banned firearms from their property.

If I might add a little change: all weapons will be held for you when you enter government buildings such as: white house, pentagon, banks, etc.

Wehn you say "held when you enter government buildings", do you mean they must be held and not concealed or that they should be allowed in government buildings.

I meant that when you enter government buildings you will have to turn them over to security officals until you leave the buidling.

At a football game of 60,000, you think safety would be improved if more, possibly drunk or otherwise crazed, people would have the capability to kill?

I would trust that most stadiums would ban them. Again read my above response.

Ok, but surely the government should only hold jurisdiction in this region in government buildings, surely on private property it should be the owner's choice whether or not to let them in and only on government property should the government legislate. I thought that was what states was saying when he said the establishments should be able to ban firearms.

So, where does this law actually allow you to carry a concealed fire-arm?

Ok, so no guns at football games. Good. But if I walk through a public park, theoretically, 50 people could be pointing a gun at me?

Obviously you didn't read the 10-20-Life link.

I have read it. Still, the odds that I'm voting for this are very slim.

I think StatesRights is editing it but:

You can carry a gun anywhere you want unless the place bans the use of firearms. You can have one on the street or anywhere else. Not in government buildings and not in places that ban them.

Basically it's for protection on the streets and at night in public.

A bank isn't a government building.  Nevertheless, I'm sure they would ban them from the premises.

Ok, well, I will consider voting for this but I personally think this should be left up to the different regions to decide.

Criminals don't care about the 10-20-Life rule.  If they're gonna kill someone, they will.  Making concealed guns legal for them is only going to drive up the crime rate.  I will absolutely vote no on this bill.

Exactly.  If you're going to kill someone, you won't stop to think about what will happen after you kill them.

Then why has crime dropped over 5% in Florida since the concealed weapons law was passed here in Florida?

If a criminal is going to kill someone, they're going to find a gun anyway, no gun control law will stop that. StatesRights' bill allows law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. I wholeheartedly support this bill.

I see no logical flaws to this bill, but I will play devil's advocate, and ask the bill's sponsor, Mr. Rights, some real examples of how a concealed handgun has helped save lives, and any opponents of this bill to provide examples where having a concealed handgun has resulted in the injury or death of innocents. After all, opposition to this bill is useless unless you have a significant reason to back it up.

I think of something like this a little bit like national security; we can wait until the problem comes to us, when it's too late, or we can take action NOW and make an attempt to prevent an accdient, and that is why I will vote yes on this bill.

Because crime has been falling nationwide.  It's part of a trend :)

Nation as per your request.

http://www.sacsconsulting.com/ccw_RealStories.htm (http://www.sacsconsulting.com/ccw_RealStories.htm)

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcInfoBase.asp?CatID=43 (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcInfoBase.asp?CatID=43)

Loads of stories, enjoy! :)

Crime falls for a REASON, Governor.

Ah, thank you Senator.

Yes, a higher standard of living, more education, more gun control... then again, I have no clue why crime was so high during the Reagan and Bush years, before crime started decreasing.

Finally, I bet Florida's crime decreased because they've gotten a higher standard of living lately, and have been getting way more prosperous :)

crime rates fluctuate . . . it's not gonna be the exact same every year

What areas have gotten a higher standard of living, and where is most of the crime occurring? What evidence do you have that your general statements like "more education" and "more gun control" have been the cause of lesser crime?

Second, I would appreciate it if you (or any Senators who are against this act) could provide some examples like Senator StatesRights did with his position, of how concealed handguns will cause more problems then they will solve?

Would assault weapons be excluded as concealed weapons?

The AK-47 carries a 7.62mm round.  The M-16 carries a 5.56mm round.  Both of these are under the 9mm limit.

Furthermore, many police officers carry 10mm handguns instead of 9mm.  They'd be excluded from carrying their weapons while off-duty.

If assault weapons are not excluded, I as Secretary of Defense and Security must inform the Senate that this will make Homeland Security next to impossible.

Any terrorist can get a permit as long as he has no criminal record, put a Kalishnikov in a backpack, show up in a public place, has hose a crowd.

To Mr. Ford:

Wouldn't a terrorrist be able to get an AK-47 whether they were legal or not?

Yes, but the fact that they would be able to legally carry one around is dangerous.  If a cop stops someone with an AK-47 in their possession, they can be arrested.  If they have a permit to carry the weapon, though, they can continue along and the cops can't stop them. Possession would be legal, and we'd have no recourse to arrest such a person until they have actually committed a terrorist act.

Not if we make sale/importation of such weapons illegal except for the military in any and all circumstances, not to mention pressuring all other countries to do such :D

Just kidding.

The wording says HANDGUN NO LARGER THAN 9mm.
an AK-47 is a rifle.

Thank you Senator, my concerns are addressed.  I withdraw my complaints.

Good points. Yes, I suppose excluding assault weapons may be a good idea then. But Texasgurl already addressed the problems, there we go.

The act as currently written would allow for people to carry concealled machine pistols such as the TEC-9.  Whether you think that is a good thing, I'll leave to the Senate to decide.
You may wish to look at 18 USC Sec. 921 (http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+521+1++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%2818%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%28921%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20) for a laundry list of definitions as used in federal law when it comes to firearms.

There is absolutely no need for concealed guns. Maybe there is a need for farmers to have guns. Yes, there is a need for police and soldiers to have them-including concealed ones. But there is no need for you, or me, or anyone else to have a gun-especially a concealed one-especially if we live inurban or suburban or even xurban areas. I am against this bill as it stands.

Exactly.  That's why ordinary citizens need to be allowed to carry firearms to protect themselves from those criminals who would do them harm.

So far it seems that it's 3-3 with 1 undecided.

I will sign this and encourages the senate to pass it.

I do not like the idea of knowing that the guy standing next to me may legally have a concealed gun.  This bill is going to put more guns on the streets.

This is a good bill and would receive a yes vote from me.

Right-o.  The criminal will sure do the following:

"Hello, sir.  How are you?"

*brandishes gun*

"Well, I think I may just shoot you now.  However, I think that I'll wait here considering whether to shoot you... or perhaps I shall do a happy jig for no reason."

*stands there for 2 minutes, then does a happy jig for 2 more minutes*

"Righto, I'm going to shoot you now.  I-am-going-to-shoot-you!"

---

The thing is, I think most criminals won't give advance worning that they're going to shoot someone.

You still haven't addressed the fact that having concealed firearms have HELPED save lives, there are clear-cut examples of it -- where has having a concealed weapon for personal safety resulted in the deaths of innocents? Please cite as many examples as you have.

I wish to amend this bill to remove Section 3.  I feel this section of the bill does damage to the basic foundation of American law that a person is innocent until proven guilty.  A man or woman who claims to have shot a person in self defence should only be brought into a court of law if there is at least some amount of evidence showing that their act was not in self defence.  By automatically requiring all those who may have used a gun in self defence to defend themselves in a court of law is a violation of the basic principle of innocent until proven guilty.

Secondly, this section is unnecessary.  It goes without saying that any shooting incident would be investigated by the police.  If the evidence suggest that a person did not in fact act out of self defence, that person will be prosecuted using the same procedures as any other criminal.  There is no need to alter the criminal justice system for the perpetrators of such crimes.

However, I fully support the first two sections of this bill.

"An armed society is a polite society."

LOL, they're being shot by other peoples' concealed weapons!

I move to amend the Atlasia Concealed Firearm Act of 2004 by eliminating Section 3 of the bill.

Motion noted, debate shall continue for now and before voting on the whole act we will vote upon the amendment. (Voting will commence 1 week after debate began in accordance with the Senatorial Procedure Resolution.

(sorry a day late)

We will now commence voting on the amendment proposed by Sen. Stevennick to remove Section Three of the bill proposed by Sen. StatesRights, all in favour say yea, all opposed say nay.

I vote yea, mainly because of a wording problem on it that means it has to be proven by the court rather than in the court that they were not acting in self defence.

(A crummy reason but hey)

Yea.

Yea

Yea

:o

Maybe I won't endorse anyone in your race :(

Abstain

Way to go Kerry. :)

I abstain.

Why so surprised, you realise this is a vote on the amendment to the act right?

We have four votes for and two abstentions, one more for the motion and the amendment passes.

I voted against the actual bill itself.

Ah.  Never mind.  Sorry.

I proudly endorse you :)

Thank you. Feel free to make your endorsement known in the Fantasy Elections thread so voters can see it.

Abstain on the amendment.

With four votes in favour and three abstentions the amendment to the Atlasia Concealed Firearms Act of 2004 has passed.

Please now vote either yea or nay on the amended act.

Yea...I messed up so I apologize.

 =O  You're voting against it the bill?

I liked it before the amendment, but --- I vote aye.

Yea.

You have voted yea on this bill three times Senator... :P

5 Yes
0 No
2 Abstain

If Tweed, Michael Z, or DemRepDan vote this could be passed...as long as Tweed doesn't know the UAC is voting for it...it could be possible... :P

I didn't vote for it. I voted yes on the amendment but not on the act itself.

No the first voting was on the ammendment to the bill, this is for the WHOLE bill!

I vote Nay.

(At one point I had abstained, but I changed to nay)

This bill puts more guns on the streets.
Nay

Well I guess there's a vote going on.

This means people have guns.  I am a pro-gun control Republican.

Nay.

c;mon man; let's bring this bill down!

ok so nay leads 2-0...sorry this is confusing...

no, there's 2 yays, 2 nays

The first vote was for the amendment.  I just spaced out and voted for the bill a second time.  I'd forgotten I already voted for it!

I can be a real space cadet sometimes.

Nay.

Can I change my vote to Nay?

I suppose you can

If you wish.

For the record, I vote nay.

Ok then...Nay leads 4-2

5 nays...me, JFK, Akno, Hugh, Tweed

Which Senators have yet to vote?

I strongly urge all remaining Senators to vote Yea on this bill.  We must afford all citizens, the right to protect themselves.  Denying law abiding citizens the right to self-defense is a terrible reflection of the priorities of this governing body.  Criminals will not abide by the law, in contrary to what these foolish utopians think.  They will continue to carry fire-arms regardless of what any governing athority has to say.  Denying this right to scared, helpless citizens is not only foolish and idiotic, but dangerous.  How will any member of this governing body feel it a woman in your district is killed or raped by some sedistic stalker, simply because she was denied the right to carry a firearm?  

I caution that we not let others fall prey to the foolish, utopian, and down right stubernly idiotic whims of those who oppose this legislation.

I yeild back the floor.

you would have had my vote.

>P

Hypothetically, couldn't the remaining five vote 'yea' and the VP break the tie?  I don't recall off the top of my head if that privilege belongs to the Atlas VP.

Oh, d'oh!  Shut up, Niles!!

Please delete your posts, Harry and Niles ;)

:D

hmmm, the Constitution says nothing about a tie...we should amend it to allow VPs to vote if there is a tie...

Wrong, Senator.  If you had acctually cared about your job as VP while you had it, then you would know that I too get a vote to break a tie.  Geez, kids these days.

C-Span replays clips of my impassioned speech.

Indeed you are correct Niles, if we have a five-five tie then the Vice President must cast the deciding vote so this is yet to fail.

Super, for the record if you wish, my reason for voting against this was that I don't see much of a point of it, on private property this law is not binding according to its author and it does not apply to government buildings. Also I think this should be a regional issue rather than a Federal issue. If this merely applied to Federal property it would have my support, but it doesn't, it in fact excludes it.

Anyway, I just thought I should justify my vote.

I'll justify my vote too. I believe this bill would put more guns on the street and that leads to the death of innocent people.

And how, exactly, Senator, will this stoping this prevent criminals from aquirering firearms?

Super, please log into AIM.

Mr. Vice President, when someone purchases a firearm, you have no way of knowing what their intentions are.

If you allow someone to legally walk down the street carrying a firearm, who knows what kind of mental health they may be in. They may be drunk, in which case they could accidently shoot someone. It is my personal belief that more guns don't make people safer. In fact, although I see no problem to allowing people to have firearms in their own homes, it should be noted that when people shoot an "intruder" they are more likely to shoot their spouse going to the bathroom than they are to stop an intruder. It is my personal belief that more guns in public places do not make us safer. You may disagree with that, and I respect your right to.

So was this bill defeated?

Nope, we have five against to two in favour.

thanx.

Real cirminals don't purchase firearms over the counter.  If I wanted to I could leave my appartment right now, head down five blocks and buy a gun for $50 from someone on the street.  That's how real criminals get their weapons.  They aren't going to try to get a concealed carry permit, they are just going to carry the damn thing.  

Are you really so foolish that you honestly believe that a criminal who would commit such a crime will obey the law and not carry a concealed firearm?

Would it not make more sense to grant citizens the right to conceal arms for their own personal protection?

And personally, Senator, I believe that you would be whistling a different tune it someone was stalking your sister or your daughter, or your wife.

If someone walks up to you on a street and points a gun at your head, having a gun yourself wouldn't help you. The criminal would see you reaching into your coat pocket, and he'd kill you right then.

What we need is to have more background checks, and make it harder for criminals to acquire guns, legally or not. That includes increasing funding for police and law enforcement officals. Every gun a criminal gets was gotten from somewhere, we need to make it harder for a gun to pass into a criminals hands. Having a gun yourself doesn't ensure your safety.

Mr. Vice President, that is EXACTLY how criminals buy firearms.  Where did the street vendor buy his stock?--The new stuff is from the stores and from the states where enforcement is lax or non-existant.  As any system of owner registration creating any accountability is a joke, there's a business tier of middlemen "collectors" who buy legally and sell illegally without the first worry of getting caught.  They are not the violent offenders, but they are still "real criminals."

This is relevent to the issue to concealed firearms, in that passing this legislation without first plugging the leaks in accountability of gun owners does create exactly the situation opponants of this legislation state: an increase of guns into the population pool--on both sides of the law.

Hmmm, my bad, the bill isn't dead yet.  But, Mr. VP, I DID care about my job as VP, yet there was NO senate when I was VP, therefore I haven't had *all the experience* you've had.

I know Harry, I'm just playing partisan.  :)

First off, if a criminal knows that I, or someone near me, might have a gun, then they might think twice about trying anything to begin with.  If, however, I cannot carry a concealed firearm because of the law, he can be fairly certain that he has the upper hand.  If I too can carry a firearm, then he will know that he has to sneek up on me, and if he fails, that gives me a chance.  If I have no gun, no matter what I do, he has the upper hand.

Second, this is no solution to the problem.  It doesn't plug the leaks that allow criminals to purchase guns.  Instead, it justs takes them out of the hands of law abidding citizens.  You are suffering for some form of backwards logic here, in that you seek to start at the end goal.  If I were going to organize an anti-gun plan, this would be the last step, not the first.  My first step would be to fix problems with the laws that we have to make it harder for criminals to aquire firm-arms in the first place.  What you have done is to vote to tip the scale decisively in favor of the criminals who already have, or can aquire arms, and don't give a sh**t about the law.

Fine, would you like to draft legislation that provides strciter background checks for people purchasing guns?

If carrying a weapon in public is illegal, a policeman could arrest a would-be-criminal for carrying it.

I think the real question we must grapple with is why we have over 10,000 gun murders per year and other civilized countries have 200. Why are we so violent?

All of this discussion doesn't change the fact that this bill puts more guns on the streets.

Voting against this bill takes guns out of the right hands, though.  We want to take guns from criminals, not innocent, law abiding citizens.

Voting will end on Wednesday unless a motion to extend voting for a week is brought to me and supported by a further four Senators.

I move to extend voting for a week.

Can I get a second??

Seconded.

I wish to go against the motion and ask for a vote on the motion.

Umm, the motion to extend voting time isn't voted upon, it comes into effect if it gains the support of four Senators excluding he who proposed it.

Lets continue voting. :)

I think the 'nay' votes have such a clear majority that it is not necessary to extend voting. I hope the remaining senators vote before the period ends, however, but I feel it is unnecessary to give them more time when they have had ample opportunity to vote in the past week.

Sorry I am overdue, as Wednesday has passed and a motion to extend voting has not gained the support of four Senators plus the Senator who proposed it I declare voting to be closed and the results of the vote to be five against to two in favour with three abstentions, the Atlasia Concealed Firearms Act of 2004 has been defeated.

Thank goodness.

:) The streets will indeed have fewer guns :)

Yes, instead, the only people to have them will be criminals.