SB 2017-135: Gun Control Expansion Act of 2017 (Debating)

[Mr. Reactionary]

I count 5 things which make this law unconstitutional that do not even involve a 2nd Amendment argument. If this passes, I will immediately file a lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement. Have a pleasant day.

[Mr. Reactionary]

If this many times unconstitutional bill were to pass, I'd sue all the way to Supreme Court ... and easily win. Several definitions in it are unconstitutionally vague for due process purposes, banning people on the no fly-list denies a fundamental liberty without the minimal due process requirements of notice and opportunity to comment, confiscation under this scheme would amount to an illegal taking, the claimed powers easily exceed those enumerated to the feds under the constitution, and requiring the Regions to enforce the law is unconstitutional comandeering. And that is without even considering the obvious 2nd amendment violations. Anyone who takes an oath to defend the constitution and then supports this illegal and tyrannical bill should resign in disgrace.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Eschewing constitutional due process just to feel better about yourself for a couple of days is reckless, irresponsible, and illegal. And even if the process issues could somehow be reconciled with the constitution, the scale of what you want is beyond reason. Myself and millions of other gun owners would not comply. You are talking about making another 10% of the population criminals. And there are many times more deer hunters in the South than Feds. Are you willing to deploy soldiers against your own citizens to strip away our rights, just so you can claim the hollow victory of having "done something"? The Unintended Consequences of this bill are terrifying. If you want to feel like you've done something, ban bumpfire stocks. I wont fight that.

[Mr. Reactionary]

You should check the constitution, Mr. Reactionary. There is no "2nd Amendment", especially not one protecting the right of citizens to own assault weapons. However, Article I, Section 7 states the following:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which protects the right of the military to own weapons. Also, this act does not ban anyone from owning guns necessary for hunting or self-defense. No person needs the type of weapon that the Vegas shooter used to mercilessly gun down dozens of people and injure hundreds more from hundreds of feet away. It should not be legal to replicate this type of shooting.

I am all for the rights of Atlasians to own handguns and hunting weapons, and I am in favor of concealed carry laws. I am not in favor, however, of allowing ordinary citizens to own weapons whose sole purpose is to create as large a body count as possible in a war scenario. There is no slippery slope argument here. I give you my vow that I will never support a bill banning all guns, but this is something that is a public safety issue. We can rehash the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument all we want, but assault rifles make it significantly easier for people to kill people. I also don't believe that anyone on the No Fly List should be able to own weapons. If they're too dangerous to fly, why should they be allowed to own guns?

Way to be pedantic. I specifically avoided legal arguments related to the right to keep and bear arms, so this "muh 7 not 2 you stoopit" argument changes nothing.

I will say though, in the lawsuit I initiate if this evil, illegal, tyrannical bill passes, I will gladly open the can of worms regarding interpretation. I don't intend this as a personal attack, but the idea that the historical and God-given right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms somehow only applies to the military is so moronic that proponents of this idea should be ridiculed. Our natural rights trump your indignity. So you better have an actual lawyer if you expect this abomination to stand, because I intend to destroy this stupid, despicable, unconstitutional piece of schit. Atlasia shall be free.

[Mr. Reactionary]

It should also be worth noting that only a small percentage of mass shootings actually involve an assault weapon (using your definition). So even if you were to ban them (which I will note, I refuse to support), you are doing very little to actually stop mass shootings from happening.

And if that garbage "buyback program" is anything like the one that was recently(ish) proposed in Fremont, no one in their right mind would be willing to consent to that.

This crap would be absolutely unenforceable as to make a mockery of the law. We cant find 14 million illegals but finding 320 million guns you can hide behind a wall or bury underground is cake. I sure as hell wont comply... i doubt any persons in a rural area will. You'd have to increase federal law enforcement tenfold and literally have them only focus on finding guns to even confiscate more than a fraction of a fraction. The idiocy ...

And dont think the Southern Region will do you any favors. Unlike most gun-grabbers, we've actually SEEN guns in real life. Many of us OWN them. We wont cower, we'll just get angry. I know the lefty trope is to complain about rightwing terrorists. Do you even realize the chaos that would be unleashed if the 3pers and oath keepers and militias ACTUALLY went Unintended Consequences against the government? You'd have bureaucrats and legislators being assassinated daily. Let me guess, your solution is to march in literal army soldiers against their own brothers and sisters. If you think Trump has moved the country towards tearing itself apart, just try and register or confiscate all guns. Everyone would lose.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Whew. Sounds like some people really need some weed.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I am all for the rights of Atlasians to own handguns and hunting weapons

http://time.com/4390506/gun-control-ar-15-semiautomatic-rifles/

https://www.realtree.com/brow-tines-and-backstrap/why-you-should-use-an-ar-15-as-a-deer-rifle

http://www.alloutdoor.com/2013/06/12/hunting-ar-15/

1. Any of the animals in the Time article could've been killed with regular hunting rifles. If you need an AR-15 to kill a damn deer, you're bad at hunting and should practice your shot.

Most "regular hunting rifles" can accept magazines too, which would make them "assault weapons " under the definition in the bill. Semiautomatic rifles (most new designs) also reduce recoil whichis ideal for newer/smaller hunters. No reason to limit hunting to just burly men with 10 yrs hunting experience.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obligatory reminder that Assault Rifles are full auto and Assault weapons are not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is why it makes a good hunting rifle, especially when hunting on smaller parcels of land. Its better than letting an injured deer limp off in pain onto posted property before dying and requiring trespass to recover.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I'd like to ask for anyone who thinks this legislation is even remotely sensible:

1. Do you know anything about hunting/have you ever been hunting?
2. Do you own a firearm?
3. Have you ever operated a firearm?
4. Have you even been in the same room as a firearm?
5. If you answered no to at least two of the above questions, what would you consider makes you knowledgeable enough to vote in favor of this legislation?

Have you ever known somebody killed in a mass shooting? Would you look into the eyes of someone who lost a relative in Vegas, Orlando, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, or anywhere else and tell them that's the trade-off for hunting rights?

I would. The bill of rights and the principles embedded in them are more important than any individual. They are bigger than you and me. Exploiting victims to undermine our fundamental inalienable rights is terrible, especially coming from advocates who dont know what exactly they are advocating for. Having people who have never owned, fired, or even seen a gun write gun legislation often leads to policies which are even more cluelessly bad than when old white male republicans write birth control legislation.This law is so cluelessly worded that a lot of .22 rifles would be banned, whereas I could retrofit my AK47 clone with a fixed 30 round springbox with a bullet button, and my AK would NOT be banned. I mean hell, if I just dont insert a magazine, my AK would not be "with a magazine" as long as I didnt take it shooting.

We were taught in law school, argue the law. If we cant argue the law, argue the facts. And if you cant argue the law or facts, pound the table and shout. Relying solely on a purely emotional  "think of teh kidz"  argument to make your point is the political equivalent of pounding the table in desperation to distract from how bad this bill is.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Im almost disappointed, since i had a 5 pg lawsuit prepared.