Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 13, 2019, 10:19:04 pm
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Predictions close today at noon

  Atlas Forum
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Regional Governments (Moderators: Gustaf, Lumine)
  FT 6-8: Gun Reform Act (Passed)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Print
Author Topic: FT 6-8: Gun Reform Act (Passed)  (Read 1869 times)
Speaker YE
YE
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,497


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 01, 2018, 05:10:08 am »
« edited: March 20, 2018, 12:30:49 am by YE »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: DFL
Logged
Speaker YE
YE
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,497


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 01, 2018, 05:12:28 am »

This is a non-starter for me more or less.
Logged
DFL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 934


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 01, 2018, 10:17:24 am »

This is a non-starter for me more or less.

Iím willing to split this baby up into easier to swallow pieces to pass or fail individually, or take out sections that draw a lot of ire, but I wanna get something done in this issue.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,742
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2018, 12:47:53 pm »

If it helps you carve this up, last year president doof signed a federal law which purports to require anyone selling a gun to have an FFL. FFL holders are always required to perform a background check prior to any sale. That makes section 4-2 unnecessary imo.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=260024.msg5776227#msg5776227
Logged
DFL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 934


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2018, 12:54:54 pm »

If it helps you carve this up, last year president doof signed a federal law which purports to require anyone selling a gun to have an FFL. FFL holders are always required to perform a background check prior to any sale. That makes section 4-2 unnecessary imo.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=260024.msg5776227#msg5776227

Sweet, I'll check that out
Logged
Ses
jk2020
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,290


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 01, 2018, 01:05:49 pm »

Whoa whoa whoa. I strenuously oppose this. Fingerprint locks mandated and monitored by the government for all guns through a registry? That's begging for abuse.

I encourage all members of Parliament to vote this down.
Logged
MB
MB298
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,442


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 01, 2018, 09:01:21 pm »

For the record I oppose this act, but what exactly is a "smart gun"?
Logged
Ses
jk2020
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,290


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 01, 2018, 09:04:36 pm »

For the record I oppose this act, but what exactly is a "smart gun"?

A fingerprint-locked gun which the government knows whose fingerprints unlock.
Logged
MB
MB298
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,442


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 01, 2018, 09:22:33 pm »

For the record I oppose this act, but what exactly is a "smart gun"?

A fingerprint-locked gun which the government knows whose fingerprints unlock.
Bad, authoritarian.
Logged
One Hundred Million Dollar Racehorse🤡🌏
Ascott
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,004
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 02, 2018, 07:22:07 pm »

Silencers/suppressors are used by hunters.  Though I am a non-member of Parliament, I call on this body to reject section 2-2.
Logged
Speaker YE
YE
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,497


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 02, 2018, 07:24:36 pm »

Silencers/suppressors are used by hunters.  Though I am a non-member of Parliament, I call on this body to reject section 2-2.

Most of this bill is being gutted in my amendment Iíll type up when I get home. Of course, my amendment may not pass.
Logged
Ted Bessell
tedbessell
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 02, 2018, 07:49:05 pm »

I'm not a fan of this. Tongue
Logged
Speaker YE
YE
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,497


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 03, 2018, 12:45:50 am »
« Edited: March 04, 2018, 12:51:37 am by YE »

Amendment: MP's have 24 hours to object. If they do, amendment goes for a full vote.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Ses
jk2020
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,290


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 03, 2018, 01:09:29 am »

Fine with this, mostly. Some issues with 2-5, but mostly ok.
Logged
KoopaDaQuick
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,354
Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas)


Political Matrix
E: -2.77, S: -5.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 03, 2018, 09:47:06 pm »

I approve of this.
Logged
MB
MB298
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,442


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 03, 2018, 09:49:01 pm »

Support the amendment.
Logged
MB
MB298
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,442


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 03, 2018, 09:49:45 pm »

Fine with this, mostly. Some issues with 2-5, but mostly ok.

Talking about the original or the amendment?
Logged
Ses
jk2020
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,290


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 03, 2018, 10:43:43 pm »

Fine with this, mostly. Some issues with 2-5, but mostly ok.

Talking about the original or the amendment?

Amendment for me.
Logged
Speaker YE
YE
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,497


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 04, 2018, 12:46:06 am »

Amendment is adopted. 72 hours of debate still allowed.
Logged
Ses
jk2020
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,290


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 04, 2018, 12:47:25 am »

Wait why isn't all of Sec 6 crossed out in the amendment?
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,729
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 04, 2018, 03:40:21 am »

I'm not an MP in the House of Commons anymore, but I am concerned about this bill as it stands, and the issues with it should be brought to the attention of all MPs here. I'm a supporter of the Second Amendment, but this has gone from being too extreme on one side of the gun issue to being too extreme on the other side.

I'm concerned by the additions to section 2, which infringe upon states' rights. Surely, states should be allowed to decide their laws based on what's best for them, so that the rest of Fremont and Atlasia can learn from their successes and their failures? The removal of section 4 is concerning. In particular the removal of clause 1 concerns me, as this enables the continuation of the 'Charleston loophole', as due to an insufficient waiting period Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof was able to get his hands on a gun despite ultimately failing a background check. At the very least the FBI should be allowed to appeal in cases where they have serious reason to believe handing over a gun would be dangerous, though I'm actually working on this issue right now in the Atlasian Senate so the exact approach to resolving this issue may change. But the loophole has to be closed-there are people's lives at stake here.

The original bill went too far in establishing a gun registry, but the gun show loophole should be close. And with Section 5-since bump stocks are still banned in section 2 and there'd be usefulness in penalizing violations of gun laws, clause 2 should remain in the bill.

I'm confident that there is a reasonable middle ground on this issue, but neither the original bill or this bill are it, and neither should be passed into law. 
Thanks
Senator Pericles of Fremont
Logged
Speaker YE
YE
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,497


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: March 04, 2018, 04:05:56 am »

I'm not an MP in the House of Commons anymore, but I am concerned about this bill as it stands, and the issues with it should be brought to the attention of all MPs here. I'm a supporter of the Second Amendment, but this has gone from being too extreme on one side of the gun issue to being too extreme on the other side.

I'm concerned by the additions to section 2, which infringe upon states' rights. Surely, states should be allowed to decide their laws based on what's best for them, so that the rest of Fremont and Atlasia can learn from their successes and their failures? The removal of section 4 is concerning. In particular the removal of clause 1 concerns me, as this enables the continuation of the 'Charleston loophole', as due to an insufficient waiting period Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof was able to get his hands on a gun despite ultimately failing a background check. At the very least the FBI should be allowed to appeal in cases where they have serious reason to believe handing over a gun would be dangerous, though I'm actually working on this issue right now in the Atlasian Senate so the exact approach to resolving this issue may change. But the loophole has to be closed-there are people's lives at stake here.

The original bill went too far in establishing a gun registry, but the gun show loophole should be close. And with Section 5-since bump stocks are still banned in section 2 and there'd be usefulness in penalizing violations of gun laws, clause 2 should remain in the bill.

I'm confident that there is a reasonable middle ground on this issue, but neither the original bill or this bill are it, and neither should be passed into law. 
Thanks
Senator Pericles of Fremont

I'll restore parts of section 4 and 5 tomorrow. Section 2 is my attempt at dismanlting the California's gun control laws so I'll leave that in there..

My plan is:
To introduce the aforementioned amendment.
Object to the amendment tactfully so I can move this for a vote on the amendment.
Won't spoil my end plan for this though
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,742
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: March 04, 2018, 01:28:03 pm »

I'm concerned by the additions to section 2, which infringe upon states' rights. Surely, states should be allowed to decide their laws based on what's best for them, so that the rest of Fremont and Atlasia can learn from their successes and their failures?

I thought the Civil War, 14th Amendment, and Civil Rights movement killed this idea that State's rights should supersede fundamental human liberties protected in the bill of rights?
Logged
Pericles
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,729
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: March 04, 2018, 01:33:14 pm »
« Edited: March 04, 2018, 01:38:43 pm by Senator Pericles of Fremont »

I'm concerned by the additions to section 2, which infringe upon states' rights. Surely, states should be allowed to decide their laws based on what's best for them, so that the rest of Fremont and Atlasia can learn from their successes and their failures?

I thought the Civil War, 14th Amendment, and Civil Rights movement killed this idea that State's rights should supersede fundamental human liberties protected in the bill of rights?

Maybe if they banned guns outright that logic would apply but these are just standard mainstream policies. The removal if clauses 3, 4, and 5 is the most problematic, and generally this goes too far. A 10-day waiting period isn't the same as slavery. And if a law is against fundamental human liberties it will be unconstitutional and be overturned.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,742
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: March 04, 2018, 01:53:17 pm »

I'm concerned by the additions to section 2, which infringe upon states' rights. Surely, states should be allowed to decide their laws based on what's best for them, so that the rest of Fremont and Atlasia can learn from their successes and their failures?

I thought the Civil War, 14th Amendment, and Civil Rights movement killed this idea that State's rights should supersede fundamental human liberties protected in the bill of rights?

Maybe if they banned guns outright that logic would apply but these are just standard mainstream policies. The removal if clauses 3, 4, and 5 is the most problematic, and generally this goes too far. A 10-day waiting period isn't the same as slavery. And if a law is against fundamental human liberties it will be unconstitutional and be overturned.

The thing is:

I feel like any law literally capping ammo ownership below 15 rounds wouldnt pass rational basis review, let alone strict scrutiny.

I also feel like any law extending criminal liability to a gun manufacturer because someone they legally sold something to engaged in product misuse is not a sufficient mens rea under the constitution.

Im also not sure if a waiting period unrelated to a background check would pass rational basis or strict scrutiny. As worded, this bill requires a waiting period of at least 2 days, even if a background check instantly comes back as clear. The waiting periods now are specifically to allow for time to conduct a background check, not just for the hell of it.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC