L10.4.1 Lincoln Gun Control Act of 2018

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Would medicaid eligible persons have their costs covered? Otherwise its effectively a regressive poll tax on a right.

Well final details on what is covered by say Atlascare would be determined by its governing agency, but mental health generally is most certainly covered.

This would most certainly inflate the cost of mental health care because you would have a surge of new patients against a static number of professionals.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

What is considered "mental issues", and how will it be determined that someone has had a history of them?

I would assume that this would refer to mental health disorders that can receive medical diagnosis, as well as any recorded instances of attempting suicide and whatnot. Medical and police records could be used to determine them.

But which mental health disorders specifically, and what is the reasoning for that disorder over others that may not be included? How is it determined that someone is unfit to own a firearm because of mental health reasons if say, they have not attempted suicide? Or if they have, what is to say that their reason for attempting had happened many years prior was for reasons such as their reaction to losing a loved one, but have since learned from that mistake? Is there a particular time limit set or criteria for determining this? What about instances where someone chooses not to seek mental health treatment they may actually need in fear of their personal medical information being disclosed without their consent?  Who will do the reporting and how will it be recorded and updated? How will much will the funding required for a such a program cost (for this and the licenses), and how will that money be raised to ensure it is funded?

I personally would support each prospective gun owner having to getting a letter from a psychologist stating they are in good mental health before purchasing or receiving a weapon. As for cost I personally believe it should be paid by the person wanting to buy the gun.

But how much will it cost and how is that cost determined?

Depends on how much the psychologist charges. As that cost is paid privately I don't see how knowing an exact cost is relevant here. 

It's going to cost the government money to issue the licenses and keep track of who has a license and when said license expires. What the psychologist charges has nothing to do with it, since they are not the ones providing and issuing them. You also increase the risk of abuse because the psychologist can charge more for prospective gun owners because they know it is now required that a psychologist is seen prior to firearm purchase, while charging other non-gun owners a different rate, despite receiving the same treatment.

I believe the costs of licenses should be paid by those wanting to own a gun. As for administrative costs I will have those numbers costed by the GM office before budget time. Though I trust costs should be kept low.

[fhtagn]

What is considered "mental issues", and how will it be determined that someone has had a history of them?

I would assume that this would refer to mental health disorders that can receive medical diagnosis, as well as any recorded instances of attempting suicide and whatnot. Medical and police records could be used to determine them.

But which mental health disorders specifically, and what is the reasoning for that disorder over others that may not be included? How is it determined that someone is unfit to own a firearm because of mental health reasons if say, they have not attempted suicide? Or if they have, what is to say that their reason for attempting had happened many years prior was for reasons such as their reaction to losing a loved one, but have since learned from that mistake? Is there a particular time limit set or criteria for determining this? What about instances where someone chooses not to seek mental health treatment they may actually need in fear of their personal medical information being disclosed without their consent?  Who will do the reporting and how will it be recorded and updated? How will much will the funding required for a such a program cost (for this and the licenses), and how will that money be raised to ensure it is funded?

I personally would support each prospective gun owner having to getting a letter from a psychologist stating they are in good mental health before purchasing or receiving a weapon. As for cost I personally believe it should be paid by the person wanting to buy the gun.

But how much will it cost and how is that cost determined?

Depends on how much the psychologist charges. As that cost is paid privately I don't see how knowing an exact cost is relevant here. 

It's going to cost the government money to issue the licenses and keep track of who has a license and when said license expires. What the psychologist charges has nothing to do with it, since they are not the ones providing and issuing them. You also increase the risk of abuse because the psychologist can charge more for prospective gun owners because they know it is now required that a psychologist is seen prior to firearm purchase, while charging other non-gun owners a different rate, despite receiving the same treatment.

I believe the costs of licenses should be paid by those wanting to own a gun. As for administrative costs I will have those numbers costed by the GM office before budget time. Though I trust costs should be kept low.

If there's anything that costs money it should be reflected in the bill itself prior to passing, not at a later date.

There's also a few other questions asked earlier in the thread that haven't been answered (not saying just you should answer them, but I would like to receive an answer from at least someone in the assembly, such as Jimmy since he proposed the changes).

[Pragmatic Conservative]

What is considered "mental issues", and how will it be determined that someone has had a history of them?

I would assume that this would refer to mental health disorders that can receive medical diagnosis, as well as any recorded instances of attempting suicide and whatnot. Medical and police records could be used to determine them.

But which mental health disorders specifically, and what is the reasoning for that disorder over others that may not be included? How is it determined that someone is unfit to own a firearm because of mental health reasons if say, they have not attempted suicide? Or if they have, what is to say that their reason for attempting had happened many years prior was for reasons such as their reaction to losing a loved one, but have since learned from that mistake? Is there a particular time limit set or criteria for determining this? What about instances where someone chooses not to seek mental health treatment they may actually need in fear of their personal medical information being disclosed without their consent?  Who will do the reporting and how will it be recorded and updated? How will much will the funding required for a such a program cost (for this and the licenses), and how will that money be raised to ensure it is funded?

I personally would support each prospective gun owner having to getting a letter from a psychologist stating they are in good mental health before purchasing or receiving a weapon. As for cost I personally believe it should be paid by the person wanting to buy the gun.

But how much will it cost and how is that cost determined?

Depends on how much the psychologist charges. As that cost is paid privately I don't see how knowing an exact cost is relevant here.  

It's going to cost the government money to issue the licenses and keep track of who has a license and when said license expires. What the psychologist charges has nothing to do with it, since they are not the ones providing and issuing them. You also increase the risk of abuse because the psychologist can charge more for prospective gun owners because they know it is now required that a psychologist is seen prior to firearm purchase, while charging other non-gun owners a different rate, despite receiving the same treatment.

I believe the costs of licenses should be paid by those wanting to own a gun. As for administrative costs I will have those numbers costed by the GM office before budget time. Though I trust costs should be kept low.

If there's anything that costs money it should be reflected in the bill itself prior to passing, not at a later date.

There's also a few other questions asked earlier in the thread that haven't been answered (not saying just you should answer them, but I would like to receive an answer from at least someone in the assembly, such as Jimmy since he proposed the changes).

I should note that the plan is to make the costs of licensing revenue neutral so the revenue from licencens will counteract the costs of the licencing system.
Edit the GM has been sent a request to look into the calculation of the costs associated with the bill.

[fhtagn]

What is considered "mental issues", and how will it be determined that someone has had a history of them?

I would assume that this would refer to mental health disorders that can receive medical diagnosis, as well as any recorded instances of attempting suicide and whatnot. Medical and police records could be used to determine them.

But which mental health disorders specifically, and what is the reasoning for that disorder over others that may not be included? How is it determined that someone is unfit to own a firearm because of mental health reasons if say, they have not attempted suicide? Or if they have, what is to say that their reason for attempting had happened many years prior was for reasons such as their reaction to losing a loved one, but have since learned from that mistake? Is there a particular time limit set or criteria for determining this? What about instances where someone chooses not to seek mental health treatment they may actually need in fear of their personal medical information being disclosed without their consent?  Who will do the reporting and how will it be recorded and updated? How will much will the funding required for a such a program cost (for this and the licenses), and how will that money be raised to ensure it is funded?

I personally would support each prospective gun owner having to getting a letter from a psychologist stating they are in good mental health before purchasing or receiving a weapon. As for cost I personally believe it should be paid by the person wanting to buy the gun.

But how much will it cost and how is that cost determined?

Depends on how much the psychologist charges. As that cost is paid privately I don't see how knowing an exact cost is relevant here. 

It's going to cost the government money to issue the licenses and keep track of who has a license and when said license expires. What the psychologist charges has nothing to do with it, since they are not the ones providing and issuing them. You also increase the risk of abuse because the psychologist can charge more for prospective gun owners because they know it is now required that a psychologist is seen prior to firearm purchase, while charging other non-gun owners a different rate, despite receiving the same treatment.

I believe the costs of licenses should be paid by those wanting to own a gun. As for administrative costs I will have those numbers costed by the GM office before budget time. Though I trust costs should be kept low.

If there's anything that costs money it should be reflected in the bill itself prior to passing, not at a later date.

There's also a few other questions asked earlier in the thread that haven't been answered (not saying just you should answer them, but I would like to receive an answer from at least someone in the assembly, such as Jimmy since he proposed the changes).

I should note that the plan is to make the costs of licensing revenue neutral so the revenue from licencens will counteract the costs of the licencing system.

But that still needs to be reflected in the bill itself.

[Sirius_]

I have some suggestions for the bill:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does the sponsor find the amendment friendly?

[Pragmatic Conservative]

I have some suggestions for the bill:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does the sponsor find the amendment friendly?

Yes but hopes for further amendments as communicated privately.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

I have some suggestions for the bill:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How does this look the licensing cost will be included after we get some financial figures back from the GM office.

[fhtagn]

I mean the comparison still stands. The AR-15 is really no different than most "safe" hunting rifles. There is really no reason to ban it when it is no more harmful.

My question about why suppressors would be prohibited also wasn't addressed.

[fhtagn]

I can understand raising the age requirement for obtaining an AR-15 if you want to implement some stricter regulation on it in response to mass shootings, but banning it outright is just silly and doesn't solve much. Especially when you consider the above point that it functionally isn't different from most modern hunting rifles, and the fact that the vast majority of gun deaths are from handguns, not AR-15s. Based on 2016 numbers, handguns were involved in murders 19x more than rifles, and 9x more than all other guns combined (Source). So using that logic, how is the AR-15 dangerous enough to be prohibited in the Lincoln Region, when it kills nowhere near as many people as "safe" handguns?

[Pragmatic Conservative]

I can understand raising the age requirement for obtaining an AR-15 if you want to implement some stricter regulation on it in response to mass shootings, but banning it outright is just silly and doesn't solve much. Especially when you consider the above point that it functionally isn't different from most modern hunting rifles, and the fact that the vast majority of gun deaths are from handguns, not AR-15s. Based on 2016 numbers, handguns were involved in murders 19x more than rifles, and 9x more than all other guns combined (Source). So using that logic, how is the AR-15 dangerous enough to be prohibited in the Lincoln Region, when it kills nowhere near as many people as "safe" handguns?

After consulting with others we will remove the AR-15 ban from the bill.

[Sirius_]

I have some suggestions for the bill:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does the sponsor find this amendment friendly?

[fhtagn]

So with the magazine limit of 10, does this mean the Lincoln Region will also be banning the Glock 17 handgun, and would this also apply to law enforcement?

Edit: Should also point out some flaws with magazine limits:
1. It only takes a few seconds to change out a magazine, hardly does anything to slow down a mass shooter. and many mass shooters don't rely on high capacity magazines to do the job, they rely on multiple firearms, or just carry more magazines to change out.
2. School shootings like the ones at Columbine and Virginia Tech didn't involve the use of high capacity magazines.
3. What happens to all the higher capacity magazines already in circulation?
4. Most homicides involving guns are done in less than 10 shots, so it doesn't stop the majority of gun deaths.

[Mr. Reactionary]

So with the magazine limit of 10, does this mean the Lincoln Region will also be banning the Glock 17 handgun, and would this also apply to law enforcement?

Edit: Should also point out some flaws with magazine limits:
1. It only takes a few seconds to change out a magazine, hardly does anything to slow down a mass shooter. and many mass shooters don't rely on high capacity magazines to do the job, they rely on multiple firearms, or just carry more magazines to change out.
2. School shootings like the ones at Columbine and Virginia Tech didn't involve the use of high capacity magazines.
3. What happens to all the higher capacity magazines already in circulation?
4. Most homicides involving guns are done in less than 10 shots, so it doesn't stop the majority of gun deaths.

I really dont want to get into the habit of correcting poorly written gun control bills that should fail, but as a friendly heads up, the section on mags should be probably be reworded as well to reflect what I believe your intent is. You probably want:

"Magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds"

As written, "Magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammo" means that if I have an empty mag that can hold 30 rounds but I dont own any ammo, the magazine is fine.

Or vice versa, if I have a mag that can hold 7 rounds and I buy a box of 20 rounds, that 7 round mag is now prohibited.

[thumb21]

So this programme will cost around $8.188 billion. Taking into account factors like non compliance, the license fee would need to be at-least $243.39 on average per gun to break even.

[Mr. Reactionary]

So this programme will cost around $8.188 billion. Taking into account factors like non compliance, the license fee would need to be at-least $243.39 on average per gun to break even.

Regressive poor tax to exercise a right.

[Wells]

I'm not usually supportive of gun control, and this is no exception. It almost was, considering there is a little bit in here I think are good, actually common sense ideas, such as licenses. But, as people in this thread (who know more about guns than we do) have pointed out, the distinction between the types of guns allowed by each license needs work. And making people pay for their licenses is, as Mr. Reactionary said, regressive. I would support making it clear in the bill that citizens will not have to pay. In the same vein, the bill is more expensive then I thought it would be. We need to cut the cost somehow. Perhaps we could do away with Class A licenses and make it legal to obtain those types of weapons without a license, while keeping the other weapons licensed. Other suggestions from Assembly members would be nice.

I don't support banning bump stocks, suppressors, or magazines. This has already been addressed in the thread by other people. And the third part of section 2 is confusing: "iii. Any individual who made a specific threat against a specific a specific citizen, business or institution in Lincoln within the last 60 days from the time they attempt to squire a firearm in Lincoln." That describes someone who made a threat, but doesn't say anything else about them. I assume that they aren't allowed to purchase a gun (which isn't a bad idea), but the bill doesn't make it clear. Could this be clarified to me, and then in the bill?

Holding gun sellers criminally liable seems authoritarian. It reminds me of when Trump said we should punish the neighbors of people who commit crimes for not reporting possible suspicious activity. I don't think we should start down that road. I do realize that it is only if they knew the buyer was not legally allowed or would commit a crime, but I doubt any convictions would come from that.

The school safety bit is fine.

I think that's everything. I hope you take this into account. My current vote would be a no, but if all these issues are fixed, I will probably vote for it.

[Blair]

What’s the argument against banning bump stocks?

[Mr. Reactionary]

What’s the argument against banning bump stocks?

If machine guns are legal subject to intense regulation, why not just also make bump fire stocks subject to the same regulations rather than straight up banning them.

Its like banning cocaine but keeping heroin illegal. The thing being banned is less scary than what is allowed.

(And before "ban those too", I think maybe 1 has been used in a crime in 80 yrs.)

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

This bill goes way too far, and it would not solve any real problems in actually combating gun violence and it's an unnecessary curtailing of civil liberties.

[Sirius_]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does the sponsor find this amendment friendly?

[Pragmatic Conservative]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does the sponsor find this amendment friendly?

Yes

[fhtagn]

I'm just wondering if this was going to be addressed at any point:

So this programme will cost around $8.188 billion. Taking into account factors like non compliance, the license fee would need to be at-least $243.39 on average per gun to break even.

Regressive poor tax to exercise a right.

[Sirius_]

I'm just wondering if this was going to be addressed at any point:

So this programme will cost around $8.188 billion. Taking into account factors like non compliance, the license fee would need to be at-least $243.39 on average per gun to break even.

Regressive poor tax to exercise a right.

I'd like for everyone to consider the possibility of the cost being split between the government and applicant. I think that making this free would incur too much debt but also agree that the licensing cost would be a bit too high. How do you guys feel about this proposal?

[Sirius_]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is this amendment friendly?