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

[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 Much of this comes from the (partially repealed) Brady Bill in RL, the expired Assault Weapons Ban in RL, and some minor things that the gun safety movement has proposed in RL like serial numbers engraved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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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!)

[Marokai Backbeat]

Nay.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I propose a simple motion to strike clauses 3 and 4 from Section 2, allowing concealed carry to be left entirely up to the regions.

Which, hopefully, generates some goodwill from people here.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I love doing this to the point that it's becoming a trick of mine of sorts. I greatly enjoy proposing things that do or have already existed in the past, in the real world, that was at one time relatively uncontroversial, and yet here are reacted to as if they are unprecedented and scandalous overreaches. Section 2 almost entirely (with the exception of a couple of items at the end of it) comes from the expired Assault Weapons Ban or Brady Bill.

I remain completely unconvinced that we should leave gun law almost entirely to the regions. That is preposterous to me. You want to leave abstinence funding to the regions? Whatever, fine, but we're talking about gun laws and as they relate to law enforcement, and there is no excuse that I can buy into that would say they shouldn't be uniform across the country. One region should laser engrave bullets to assist law enforcement, but another shouldn't? Why? I can get down with soft regionalism, but this logic is something that, to it's logical extension, leads to nearly nothing being national policy.

Section 2 does not "markedly restrict" gun ownership, either. That is an obscene exaggeration. It restricts a handful of specific kinds of modified weaponry, the kind of weaponry that you only need if you're building a militia group or are funding a SWAT team. Background checks should be uniform, laser engravings should be uniform, ammunition clip size restrictions should be uniform, because if they're not, you end up in a situation where gun manufacturers congregate to a particular region to abuse regulatory loopholes and avoid responsibility, the same way other businesses do when there are five different regulatory policies in this country; they pick what's advantageous to them and it completely invalidates anything "regionalism" tries to accomplish.

In the interests of good policy you either support something outright or you don't, but this limbo will he-won't he that some people here are playing are bizarre. Have the courage of your convictions to be consistent in your positions. I hate having to thread the needle for some people here.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I object to the amendment.

Canada scrapped their registry because the Conservative Party pretended they were only opposed to portions of it and then when they received a majority they rammed through complete repeal of the registry on the strength of said majority. Pretending it was done by Serious People sitting in rooms deliberating over the empirical effectiveness of it is ridic.

It's also much different from what is proposed here, which is a basic Handgun registry only, not a catch-all gun registry. We can keep watering down, watering down, until this gun law is completely useless, or we can pass a basic system of gun records so we can actually protect and assist law enforcement and keep track of the most numerous type of guns. I see nothing wrong with passing a basic handgun registry and don't understand, frankly, what people are upset about at all. It is harmless.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye.

And shh, Yankee!