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

[Grumpier Than Thou]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator Henry Wallace

I hereby open the floor for debate.

[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.

[ZuWo]

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.

What are these points that are unconstitutional? I'm genuinely curious, especially because I'm no expert on guns.

[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.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Another horrific mass shooting has afflicted Atlasia in Las Vegas, Nevada, and we are all appalled. In my mind, it is clear that action must be taken in regards to gun control in order to prevent such massacres.

Guns must be prevented from falling into the wrong hands, and that is why this bill introduces many new permits and background checks. This bill also bans individuals on the no fly list from purchasing guns, which will help prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons.

Additionally, this bill bans assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, which were both previously banned from 1994 to 2004. During those 10 years, deaths from mass shootings fell. Also, the weapon used in the Las Vegas mass shooting was a semiautomatic assault weapon. Banning such weapons will save lives.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter to me whether this bill, an amended version of this bill, or a different gun control bill is passed. But something must be done about gun violence. We cannot afford to do nothing. In my opinion, this bill is a sensible piece of gun control legislation that will reduce gun violence in Atlasia.

[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.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

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?

[fhtagn]

This bill also bans individuals on the no fly list from purchasing guns, which will help prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons.

You do realize that everyday, law-abiding citizens accidentally end up on the no fly list, right? It is actually pretty easy, and in most cases, does not require any actual proof of wrongdoing.

So what you are literally suggesting here is trampling on the rights of someone without due process that is often times not even based on any actual evidence to support them being on the list to begin with, and pretending that it's because of "public safety".

[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.

[fhtagn]

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.

Edit: missed the portion where it is a buyback for the full cost of the weapon, which honestly is also bad. We are looking at a very large deficit budget-wise, and I do not think it is wise to make that even bigger so that we can illegally buy people's guns and destroy them. Where do you think that money is supposed to come from? What makes you think people will just willingly fork over their personal property?

[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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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?

Do you at least acknowledge the problem that someone who shouldn't be on the list (which has happened multiple times) will get put on the list, have no recourse to get off the list and will have their constitutional rights infringed without any form of due process?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which protects the right of the military to own weapons.

No it doesn't. The first part of the clause merely states the primary motivation for, the explicit natural right that is established in the last half of the sentence. It doesn't condition that right.

In the 18th century, service in the militia was compulsory. And were considered a threat to the control of the central state and the national/Imperial Army. There was great opposition to a standing army as well at the founding because standing army often lead to centralization of the state, and reduction of freedom.

There was also for them in recent historical times, instances of the centralized state trying to disarm the local populace so as to enforce the degradation of natural rights and representative government. King James II, tried to disarm the militias to prevent them from rising up to support William of Orange. In 1774 when enforcing the Intolerable Acts, the British Army sought to seize weapons and disarm the surrounding peoples, so as to enable their suppression of natural rights and representative government. It was one of these raids in 1775, that sparked the Revolutionary War.

The Bill of Rights is so composed as a response to, and a protection against, the impositions and degradations rights imposed on the colonists at the hands of an oppressive imperial regime. That is why there are protections against search and seizure, quartering etc. The right to keep and bear arms is likewise present because the British attempted to forcibly disarm the populace, so they couldn't resist the degradations in other rights, freedoms and democratic rule.

There is absolutely no purpose behind, and no historical basis for, such an amendment (in RL Constitution) existing to protect "the right of the military" to arm itself when such already existed under the grant of powers to Congress to raise and equip a military force, as well as the necessary and proper clause. The presence of such language amongst the "bill of rights", which was composed as a list of natural rights, and many of which were infringed by the British during the lead up to and during the Revolutionary War, only exists (like all other sections in the Article) as the government's recognition of the natural rights of the people and the government's stated desire to protect the same.

 

[ZuWo]

I agree with Mr. Reactionary and Rep. North Carolina Yankee when they say that Article I, Section 7 refers to the right of the general population to bear arms, not to the military. Given these constitutional constraints, any gun control bill has to be crafted very carefully. Section 2, Clause 7 is especially problematic in this regard.

[fhtagn]

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/

[Anna Komnene]

Whew. Sounds like some people really need some weed.

Anyway, I'll offer the following amendment. I have long opposed the no fly list on due process grounds, and I don't support expanding its influence further than it already is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Whew. Sounds like some people really need some weed.

[fhtagn]

Whew. Sounds like some people really need some weed.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

Senator Siren's amendment is friendly. The no fly list ban has proven to be an unpopular part of this legislation, and I doubt that this bill will be able to pass unless the ban is removed from it.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

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.

2. People giving reasons why using an AR-15 to hunt is fun doesn't make it a hunting weapon. It's an assault rifle. Its primary purpose is to kill quickly and effectively. If someone can't hunt without an AR-15 and thinks they should be legal for that reason, see point 1.

Anyway, I've been away most of the weekend because of personal reasons but I jumped back in at a weird time.

[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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Apologies for missing this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Adopted

[fhtagn]

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?

[fhtagn]

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.

This. I'm 5'1" IRL. And while I have experience hunting and own an older gun that doesn't fit this description, someone else like me with less experience, or even a child learning to hunt (for reference here, I first learned to shoot when I was 12), it is much much safer to learn on newer semiautomatic rifles than how I learned how to do it.

I mean this is supposed to be about safety, right?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I have a record of opposing strict gun control measures, and this bill fits that criteria.  I am all for universal background checks (as we passed early this year), but I am skeptical of so-called "assault weapons" bans and I generally believe that gun laws are best handled on the municipal level.  What works for New Hampshire and Wyoming might not work for Chicago and New York.

I am, however, open to banning silencers and limiting magazine/clip sizes, or even making ammunition more expensive.  Silencers I understand may be necessary for hunting, but we saw how in Orlando and Las Vegas the shooters were able to mask the sounds of their havoc behind the loud music and pyrotechnics.