FT 6-8: Gun Reform Act (Passed)

[Pericles]

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

[Pericles]

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.