S.18.4-38: Zzap Act - Statute

[fhtagn]

Supermarkets are still not public property, and this idea would not have even prevented the one time incident TimTurner gave.

Specifying "malls and supermarkets" in an attempt to address Turner's exact example seems to incur the argument made here:

I mean "stores" includes stores that sell stunguns. The proposed amendment suggests that no store could ever possess a physical inventory of stunguns to sell on-site.

I'm not sure how this is so hard for you to understand. The wording of this bill reads:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Supermarkets are not public property. The Southern government does not have the authority to dictate what cannot be carried onto private property, especially as laid out in the bill.

That is why I quoted Mr. R regarding the compromise of allowing private businesses to prohibit them if they post signage.

Your suggestion of limiting it to supermarkets also does not define what is considered a supermarket, and does not solve the fake issue that Tim's useless amendment was intended to solve.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

How do people feel about narrowing the scope of this as follows:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, not formally offering this yet, just putting it out there as an option.

[Former President tack50]

I think the bill is fine as is, the "stores and supermarkets" exception just clarifies the bill. I wouldn't mind returning to the original wording though, but removing 1.e might be an issue, as some stadiums might be considered public arenas? And thus lead to stungun fights in those stadiums?

I also support Reactionary's idea of adding an ammendment to the Being Safe in Public Act to allow bussinesses to ban stunguns if they desire through appropiate signage.

If everyone's ok with it, I propose the following ammendment instead, which returns the bill to the original wording and adds Reactionary's compromise option. It still keeps point 1.e albeit as a part of the ammendment to the Being Safe in Public Act instead of on the bill proper:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2. 3. This act shall take effect immediately. No lawsuit to enforce the provisions of the law shall be justiciable in any federal or Regional court until 90 days after this law takes effect.[/quote]

Sidenote: I guess we now have an ammendment to ammend a bill inside a bill that was previously ammended as well. Ammendment-ception

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I do not support this.

[fhtagn]

I do not support this.

What about it exactly is unreasonable?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

this is fair I think.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I do not support this.

What about it exactly is unreasonable?

A taser ban in stores (for consumers at least) ought to be compulsory.

[fhtagn]

I do not support this.

What about it exactly is unreasonable?

A taser ban in stores ought to be compulsory.

1. You cannot do this under the wording of this bill. Once again, stores are not public property. How hard is that for you to understand?
2. Gun stores aren't the only place you can buy a stun gun.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

You know, you've convinced me to give up on banning tasers in stores. However...I have another way of getting much the same result.
Another amendment incoming...

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I withdraw both amendments.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I ask for unanimous consent to adopt the Tack Amendment.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I back keeping the stadiums ban in place. I think we ought to return to the original wording.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I back keeping the stadiums ban in place. I think we ought to return to the original wording.

Is this an objection to my UC request?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I back keeping the stadiums ban in place. I think we ought to return to the original wording.

Is this an objection to my UC request?

I guess.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I back keeping the stadiums ban in place. I think we ought to return to the original wording.

Is this an objection to my UC request?

I guess.

If it is, then under the rules we proceed to a vote on the Tack Amendment. If not, we effectively adopt it by voice vote. So essentially, do you want to force a recorded vote here?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Yes.

><><><><><><>

this amendment is up for vote

Nay

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Also - I plan on seeking unanimous consent for a final vote even if this amendment still passes. Should it fail to pass I will seek to purge the bill of my "stores and supermarkets" amendment via unanimous consent, and then seek unanimous consent for a final vote.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Aye

[Former President tack50]

Aye

[alancia]

Aye

[CMB222]

Nay

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The amendment passes by a vote of 4-1.

Motion for a final vote.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I second the motion.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

A final vote has started. Please vote AYE or NAY

AYE