LC 5.6: Lincoln Assualt Weapon and Automatic Weapon Ban Act (Passed)

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Everything that could be reasonably defined as common sense gun control already exists in Lincoln under the Firearms Safety Act. Any Councillors interested in the very many negatives of this bill should simply read the debate on this exact bill from the last Council session. And I should note Councillors OneJ and Pragmatist both voted to table this last session.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Just quoting some debate to help any Councillors make their mind up.

I'm concerned regarding the vague ban on possession of Title II weapons and how the regional government plans to institute such a ban. Most of these types of weapons are already heavily regulated and are not readily available for gun owners. Will museums be prohibited from displaying historical weaponry matching Title II descriptions?

If the purpose of this part of the bill is to address public safety, I would argue that the Firearms Safety Act did that perfectly fine without instituting a ban.

Also, why are shotguns specifically targeted in Sec 5? Why tax such a specific firearm?

I echo the sentiments of Pyro, we’ve already passed comprehensive gun reform, and such changes are very similar or go into further depth than this one. This bill isn’t needed.

Most problematic is the concept that someone who produces something is responsible if someone uses that product in a criminal manner. Should knife manufacturers pay compensation if someone stabs someone using a kitchen knife they manufactured? Should a Garden Tool manufacturer be responsible if someone buys their tools and uses them to dismember a body?
And the tax rates are not only absurdly high but illogical. On what grounds are Shotguns taxed the lowest, while Rifles are taxed at 50%.

Lincoln already has mandatory Background Checks. Lincoln already has concealed carry. Lincoln already bans sales of firearms to minors. These proposed additional measures are counterproductive and will do far more harm than good.


Also, a couple thoughts on the Gun bill from a Game Engine perspective as the Deputy GM-nominate:
the high tax rates on guns would certainly lead to an enormous black market, and would really undermine current gun control policies already in effect.
Suing gun manufacturers would establish an illogical legal precedent than if you manufacture something you are responsible for if someone buys it and uses it in a criminal manner.
Banning possession of automatic weapons would definitely cause enforcement problems and if anything might encourage a black market for those weapons
I can't think of any problems around the normal parts of the AWB. It's certainly a divisive policy but there wouldn't be major implications from it
In short, the AWB is normal but everything else won't actually reduce the rate of gun crime and will only make guns a black market product and thus more potent and more dangerous, just like alcohol during the prohibition.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

An AWB would absolutely create a black market, and suggesting it wouldn't is silly. That's also operating under the assumption that people who already own one are willing to give them up, which you know they won't.

As I did say, from a GM perspective banning possession is certainly going to create problems with effective enforcement.
And on the AWB, America had an AWB for a decade from '94-'04 and there are AWBs in effect in 7 states and DC. The overwhelming weight of evidence is that AWBs are generally ineffective in actually reducing the rate of gun crime. Meanwhile there isn't much evidence of large black markets as assault weapons aren't particularly useful or effective to anyone who needs a gun.
If you ban Assault Weapons nothing happens because Assault Weapon ownership is pretty small and the definition is inherently a meaningless line in the sand. The small demand that there is for Assault Weapons just moves to other almost identical firearms that barely squeeze under the definition and are  basically identical in power anyway.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

An AWB would absolutely create a black market, and suggesting it wouldn't is silly. That's also operating under the assumption that people who already own one are willing to give them up, which you know they won't.

As I did say, from a GM perspective banning possession is certainly going to create problems with effective enforcement.
And on the AWB, America had an AWB for a decade from '94-'04 and there are AWBs in effect in 7 states and DC. The overwhelming weight of evidence is that AWBs are generally ineffective in actually reducing the rate of gun crime. Meanwhile there isn't much evidence of large black markets as assault weapons aren't particularly useful or effective to anyone who needs a gun.
If you ban Assault Weapons nothing happens because Assault Weapon ownership is pretty small and the definition is inherently a meaningless line in the sand. The small demand that there is for Assault Weapons just moves to other almost identical firearms that barely squeeze under the definition and are  basically identical in power anyway.

It's also worth noting that SNJC is incorrectly defining assault weapons under this bill as any semiautomatic firearm. Almost every modern gun in the hands of civilians is semiautomatic. You cannot possibly argue that is reasonable and can be enforced.

Yes the definition of assault weapons is pretty illogical. Basically all modern American consumer firearms would qualify as "Assault Weapons" under this legislation.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

It should also be noted that Section 4, the legal liabilities for gun manufacturers, is unenforceable due to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which was passed by RL congress before reset and hasn't been amended, repealed or superseded post-reset and so therefore almost certainly overrides §4.

Edit, the resident legal scholar is in agreement.