SENATE BILL: Omnibus Gun Policy & Safety Act (Law'd)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Marokai Blue

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Marokai, you got 24 hours here to explain what this is suppose to be.


Don't be late, or we shalln't discuss the consequences.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Unfortunately, the committee fails to reach a consensus on either item.   Although technically, we recommend passage of the bill and are neutral (1-1-1) on Senator Hagrid's amendment.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Marokai, you have just 13 hours remaining. Can you just feel the chemical makeup, it will make such a lovely fire. Such thoughts are so soothing and pleasureable, don't you agree my friend?

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'll basically just start with my committee statement:

Alrighty! So, Atlasia basically has no codified national gun laws, and given many recent shootings, I think there's never been a more appropriate time to consider a national omnibus gun law.

The first thing I think is important, regardless of the contents, is that we at least create a good foundation as a starting point for any future gun safety laws, similar to how we now file trade agreements; into an omnibus to discourage a million different pieces of the statute.

Beyond that, though, I think it's finally time we get some decent safety laws. Much of this comes from the (partially repealed) Brady Bill in RL, the expired Assault Weapons Ban in RL, and some minor things that the gun safety movement has proposed in RL like serial numbers engraved into guns and ammunition, clip size, restricting the amount bought within a single month, things like that, as well as tightening background check laws and nationalizing a basic set of concealed carry laws and a registry.

It's mostly pretty centrist stuff, honestly. Almost nothing is really outright banned, people can still own plenty of guns, nothing prevents people from hunting, there's no big overreach, it's all just preventing excesses. People don't need to have enhanced weapons built for automatic firing or military grade weapons, people can get buy perfectly fine purchasing two firearms a month (which doesn't affect business), law enforcement could be greatly enhanced by a registry (which doesn't impede on civil liberties) and serial number engravings.. it prevents easily accessed crimes, encourages (with the buyout program) getting some guns off the street, and empowers law enforcement as it relates to gun crimes, while preserving the right to bear arms. Just doing so more responsibly.

In addition to what I said above though, I'd just like to stress that these are all very minor-but-potentially-effective things that still come nowhere close to the gun restrictions of our first world contemporaries. It's a small grab bag of centristy gun safety laws, most of which are almost impossible to argue against; like serial number engravings or ammo clip size restrictions. The registry is harmless and the buyout program could help get guns off the street. The nationalized concealed carry standards ensure that people don't have wildly different concealed carry standards whenever they cross regional boundaries.

Most things on their own on the list are minor in and of themselves, but this is meant as an omnibus, a place for all of our future gun safety statute to go, and all of it together encourages responsibility in gun ownership while not stepping on constitutional toes and markedly improving law enforcement in gun crimes with the goal of deterring future incidents.

All in all, I just think it's mad that Atlasia doesn't have national gun safety laws and it's time we start somewhere.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

IF a business model depends on the local drug gang coming in "refilling their ammo cache" every Tuesday, then it would be harmed. Perhaps you should say "legitimate" business.


I don't like the idea of stripping regions of their rights to determine their own gun laws.

[Franzl]

Strongly support in its entirety.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

An Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I propose this amendment because I think the current language is unconstitutional.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Justify that to me, because I am not friendly to it. I don't understand why you would support that amendment unless you're trying to create a deliberate loophole. People in that category under your amendment couldn't buy a gun, but if they somehow conveniently came into the possession of one, we couldn't do anything about it. Why? If someone is too much of a danger to buy a gun, why should they be allowed to have one at all?

I propose this amendment because I think the current language is unconstitutional.

I disagree with the interpretation, but playing along for the sake of argument, how is your version any less allegedly unconstitutional?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Article IV, Section 5 states that "the right to keep and bear fire-arms and low-potency explosives shall not be infringed." Forbidding people from possessing or transporting fire-arms pretty blatantly infringes on their right to "keep" these weapons.

We can limit the conditions surrounding gun ownership, but I don't see how we can tell certain people that they aren't allowed to possess guns. We'd have to amend the constitution. Forbidding the sale of guns to these folks is, I think, the best we can legally do.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I still disagree that it's unconstitutional, but, I'll accept changing that language if we beef up the registry provisions to include other kinds of guns.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I can't promise I'd support that.

So maybe it'd just be best to put my amendment to a vote...

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Input from some of our Supreme Court judges might be helpful on this one.  Personally, I'm split.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Input from some of our Supreme Court judges might be helpful on this one.  Personally, I'm split.

Why would Supreme Court justices actually do that? What would be the point of an actual court?

I can't promise I'd support that.

So maybe it'd just be best to put my amendment to a vote...

Very well then.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Input from some of our Supreme Court judges might be helpful on this one.  Personally, I'm split.

Why would Supreme Court justices actually do that? What would be the point of an actual court?

Just for an opinion.  I asked AG Afleitch about this last month and he said so far there hasn't been a SC 'test' on to what extent gun regulations are prohibited.  Input from one, two, or three of the judges who would decide this would be helpful in determining if we're able to legally pass this, is all.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Expecting current Justices to give their opinion on a potentially big issue informally like that is a huge no-no. It's silly to expect Justices to serve as legal advisers to the legislature. You'd get their input in a court decision. You should ask former Justices. (Like me!)

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Okay: How is it not unconstitutional?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Expecting current Justices to give their opinion on a potentially big issue informally like that is a huge no-no. It's silly to expect Justices to serve as legal advisers to the legislature. You'd get their input in a court decision. You should ask former Justices. (Like me!)

And you have certainly demonstrated your Constitutional credentials this term, even somewhat before it began.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I like the idea of having the registry and standards on who can buy them, but this "...The nationalized concealed carry standards ensure that people don't have wildly different concealed carry standards whenever they cross regional boundaries. ", is bothering me.


I support concealed carry, but if the Pacific doesn't want concealed carry, but the IDS and Mideast do, it shouldn't be forced them.

Amendment will be processed as soon as I ensure that no other amendments have been entered earlier on toher bills.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: Vote to begin soon.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: Senators a vote is now open on the above amendment, please vote Aye, Nay, or Abstain.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Abstain.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye

[Franzl]

Nay