L10.4.1 Lincoln Gun Control Act of 2018

[Pragmatic Conservative]

As a county we have endured enough gun violence and inaction from our politicians to come up with sensible reforms to reduce gun violence. This bill will make overly dangerous firearms illegal while allowing our regions citizens the ability to access much safer weapons in hopes that we reduce mass shootings and gun violence. This bill will hold gun store owners and individuals liable if they give a gun to an individual that is unqualified to posses one and they commit a violent crime with it. In this bill is an expanded background check component that includes both a mental health check and a check if an individual has made specific violent threats against local Lincoln businesses, institutions and individuals in the last 60 days. Finally this bill will require that visitors that enter a public school have their bags checked to ensure they are not carrying a weapon. I am open to amendment and hope we can get something substantial passed on this subject area after we have seen numerous attempt at gun reform fail.   

[Pragmatic Conservative]

I noticed Blair mention "shotgun license", and the idea of different levels of firearm licenses with increasing restrictions does intrigue me. Perhaps we could amend (or completely rewrite) the bill in that fashion rather than having an outright ban on some of the types of guns you mentioned?

I would certainly be open to such an amendment.

[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.

[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. 

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Does the sponsor find this amendment friendly?

Yes

[Pragmatic Conservative]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is this amendment friendly.

Yes

[Pragmatic Conservative]

I would like to propose this amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is this amendment friendly?

Yes

[Pragmatic Conservative]

I would like to propose this amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.