LC 2.4 A Bill to Exterminate Gun Violence (Referred to referendum)

[Mr. Reactionary]

Don't forget about the watermelon knives.

(Sigh)

^ My feelings upon reading the bill.

[Mr. Reactionary]

The only thing that needs extermination here is this bill.

You are a liberal, you support gun control

You are a conservative, you oppose gun control

[Mr. Reactionary]

This bill has been endorsed by the Brotherhood of Blackmarket Weapons Dealers.

And every licensed gun dealer in the South and Fremont.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Let's start with this question, why does this bill ban all persons merely "charged" with a crime but who were never convicted from exercising a constitutional right? That's missing something.

DU_ PROC_SS

You should buy a vowel.

[Mr. Reactionary]

The only thing that needs extermination here is this bill.

You are a liberal, you support gun control

You are a conservative, you oppose gun control

Gun control has like 70-90 percent of support, it is much more likely to have an anti-gun conservative than a pro-gun liberal

Uh, yeah, cause most gun control supporters are for basic things like background checks and all, not the authoritarian stuff you’re proposing.

And remember, in Atlasia there is no "Gun Show Loophole", background checks can hypothetically last up to 28 days now instead of just 3 like in real life, and all federal agencies are required to certify that they report relevant disqualifying information to the background check database.

[Mr. Reactionary]

The only thing that needs extermination here is this bill.

You are a liberal, you support gun control

Most Liberals in this game oppose gun control.

Would you all rather have crazy people running around with guns or this common-sense law written by a centrist-leaning conservative

Background checks and eliminating the gun show loophole are bipartisan common sense legislation. A limited Assault Weapons ban is a fringe policy supported by maybe 10-20% of Atlasians. Mandatory Gun Licensing is beyond extreme with the support of only one person, yourself.

Hey now, don't forget Wallace and Winfield.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Guess no firearm for me for 15 years.

And then there's a 2 year waiting period.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Differences between this version and S019's version:

> Instead of Banning all assault weapons, this only bans automatic weapons (which I think are already banned, like in RL?) and semi-automatics above a certain firing rate

This is actually more restrictive than SNJCs proposal. Under SNJCs only assault weapons (a subset of semiautomatic rifle) would have been banned. This expands the ban to all machine guns (even though its easier to legally buy uranium than a machine gun) and all semiautomatic firearms, including the bulk of handguns out there and even .22 rifles which are practically a children's toy. The effect of such a ban would be dozens of millions of currently legal weapons becoming criminal.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Differences between this version and S019's version:

> Instead of Banning all assault weapons, this only bans automatic weapons (which I think are already banned, like in RL?) and semi-automatics above a certain firing rate

This is actually more restrictive than SNJCs proposal. Under SNJCs only assault weapons (a subset of semiautomatic rifle) would have been banned. This expands the ban to all machine guns (even though its easier to legally buy uranium than a machine gun) and all semiautomatic firearms, including the bulk of handguns out there and even .22 rifles which are practically a children's toy. The effect of such a ban would be dozens of millions of currently legal weapons becoming criminal.

Huh, I assumed assault weapons meant pretty much everything that wasn't a handgun. I guess I'll correct that later.

Honestly my biggest worry with that part is the loss of sales to other regions. I considered putting a ban on the importation of guns to Lincoln, but imagined it would be unconstitutional.

A ban solely on importation would probably be unconstitutional on protectionism grounds, as states or Regions are very limited in the extent to which they can target/disfavor out of state commerce.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Nay

Nay

Huh, didn't think you would be supporters of strict gun control.

For the record: this amendment would allow the sale of semi-automatic firearms while the unamended version would ban sales of those.

It's not a vote on the entire amendment, just that tiny section.

I think the concern is that even the amended version is really really really bad and making it more likely to pass is not advisable. I mean, this act claims to be about gun violence but IIRC there has been maybe 3 violent crimes committed with a legally owned machine gun since 1934 (excluding deaths caused by law enforcement). I have no idea why people think that would reduce violence when none exists in the first place. Plus the total ban on concealed carry would invalidate millions of permits, there is no reason to restrict ownership to persons over 21 considering younger persons hunt, can work as security or law enforcement, and literally participate in Olympic shooting, and the Lincoln Gun Control Act of 2018 which is to be reinstated was almost as bad as SNJCs original bill.

And while I hope the federal government will allow Regions to permit firearms rights restoration for felons in the future, much of section 4 is federally preempted as federal law is what prohibits all felons from owning guns, and the region cant limit it to just 15 years or just 1 class of felons.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I object.

There are several major issues with this bill that have not been addressed.

1. Why does Lincoln need background checks if they are already required federally?

2. I am extremely wary of the "violent crime" segment of this bill. I support the notion that those who commit heinous acts have their access to weaponry severely restricted, however is it not true that this is essentially covered through the mandated background check? I am also not fond of the idea that firearm rights can be revoked for "other crimes".

3. I vehemently oppose the age restriction set in this bill. If an individual can be drafted into war, they should be able to purchase a firearm. The threshold should be 18 years and nothing more.

I think these are reasonable objections from Pyro.

Im also still concerned with the machine gun ban as there have only been 3 crimes committed with a legally registered machine gun in the country in 70 years. Remember it is not easy to get one, they are expensive, and federal regs mandate fingerprints, registration, recordkeeping, rules for storage, Transportation, and letting others touch it, on top of the background checks. Machine guns aren't actually a violence problem right now.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Just a note, the present definition for violent crime is probably unconstitutionally vague as applied to some citizens. An exhaustive list is the best way out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness_doctrine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sessions_v._Dimaya

[Mr. Reactionary]

Interesting argument from an economic standpoint. Regarding the constitutionality of the provisions, I do think a good bill can be reached--setting some reasonable gun control measures doesn't mean unconstititionality directly.

The constitutionally problematic section is 3, which bans gun ownership for those convicted of violent crime.

Specifically misdemeanor common assault

[Mr. Reactionary]

Well, the Philly Plan again has demonstrated that it resulted in a Chamber that cannot write bills.

You guys swore an oath to uphold the constitution. Yet you pass a bill with a strict licensing system as well as "proof of a reasonable cause for having a Class C license", both of which are constitutionally suspect provisions. You should be ashamed of yourselves. You also have ignored a typo that changes the meaning of part of this bill.

Beyond constitutional and grammatical concerns, Section 4 of Division B is an undue infringement on the Liberty of our citizens.

I look forward to this bill being struck down in court.

 

Lets hope the Governor has the balls to veto.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Well, the Philly Plan again has demonstrated that it resulted in a Chamber that cannot write bills.

You guys swore an oath to uphold the constitution. Yet you pass a bill with a strict licensing system as well as "proof of a reasonable cause for having a Class C license", both of which are constitutionally suspect provisions. You should be ashamed of yourselves. You also have ignored a typo that changes the meaning of part of this bill.

Beyond constitutional and grammatical concerns, Section 4 of Division B is an undue infringement on the Liberty of our citizens.

I look forward to this bill being struck down in court.

 

Not only that, but they also just signed off on completely destroying their region's budget with this bill. Lincoln can't afford it, they passed it anyway.

Uh, no we did not.

I designed the few modifications precisely to make the licensing system free or as close to free as possible.

Testing materials will be available for free over the internet (so everyone can get a license for free, there is no barrier of access).

Tests are performed at any facility that performs driver's license tests. There are also no "practical" sections. Just memorize what the governemnt posts and write it down when the exam comes.

It might strain the system a bit, but this will barely require any funding. What would we need to pay for? The actual license cards? Papers for the tests?

Staff time. Although what are the licenses for? I thought this bill banned concealed carry and the millions of existing concealed carry permits.

Edit: wait, did the final bill actually claim you have to have a government licenses just to OWN a gun? And that your "permission" expires every 5 years? Jesus christ that is definitely unconstitutional. There would definitely be a ton of costs just for staff to rubber stamp the millions upon millions of applications every year. Especially since this includes Ohio, Pennsylvania,  New York, Michigan... bye bye hunting.

Im tempted to use the "R" word to describe this dog vomit of a bill.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Well, the Philly Plan again has demonstrated that it resulted in a Chamber that cannot write bills.

You guys swore an oath to uphold the constitution. Yet you pass a bill with a strict licensing system as well as "proof of a reasonable cause for having a Class C license", both of which are constitutionally suspect provisions. You should be ashamed of yourselves. You also have ignored a typo that changes the meaning of part of this bill.

Beyond constitutional and grammatical concerns, Section 4 of Division B is an undue infringement on the Liberty of our citizens.

I look forward to this bill being struck down in court.

 

Not only that, but they also just signed off on completely destroying their region's budget with this bill. Lincoln can't afford it, they passed it anyway.

Uh, no we did not.

I designed the few modifications precisely to make the licensing system free or as close to free as possible.

Testing materials will be available for free over the internet (so everyone can get a license for free, there is no barrier of access).

Tests are performed at any facility that performs driver's license tests. There are also no "practical" sections. Just memorize what the governemnt posts and write it down when the exam comes.

It might strain the system a bit, but this will barely require any funding. What would we need to pay for? The actual license cards? Papers for the tests?

Staff time. Although what are the licenses for? I thought this bill banned concealed carry and the millions of existing concealed carry permits.

Edit: wait, did the final bill actually claim you have to have a government licenses just to OWN a gun? And that your "permission" expires every 5 years? Jesus christ that is definitely unconstitutional. There would definitely be a ton of costs just for staff to rubber stamp the millions upon millions of applications every year. Especially since this includes Ohio, Pennsylvania,  New York, Michigan... bye bye hunting.

Im tempted to use the "R" word to describe this dog vomit of a bill.

Gun licensing isn't exactly a new idea, and was seriously entertained in the 60's and 70's. Also five years is a long time. Also, a reminder that, that portion of the bill was taken from a past bill. Also this bill is a lot better than some legislation that I have seen proposed from various lawmakers. Yet, that legislation never seems to get criticized. This bill is certainly not dog vomit, it passed with support from both parties as a compromise measure. However, there have been bills comparable to dog vomit, proposed in just the last two weeks. Also I hope the R-word is you are planning to use is "repulsive" or "repugnant," and not the one that can be insulting to people, especially when used in the context, that you plan to use it in

There's no "can" about it. I do want to insult the author of this diarrhea bill and Im glad you picked up on the word and its insulting nature without me having to get death points by spelling it. Frankly calling it retarded is an understatement.

I mean, the logical extension to this is citizens having to obtain a license every 5 years just to not be tortured or subjected to illegal searches. A license is revocable and is literally the opposite of a right. If I have a license and it lapses, you are claiming my rights expire. Thats tyrannical lunacy. If I dont file paperwork every 5 years, you just said the government can confiscate everything I own, hack off my limbs with an axe, and throw me in jail without trial if I talk about it with a journalist. A right is a right, and they cant be subject to a total ban or expiration like this. Anyone who voted aye should be ashamed and resign in disgrace.

I again hope the Governor recognizes the evil this dogschit represents and sends it to the people to kill. Even though our rights should never have to be subject to a vote in the first place.