Molotov

Senator Lucille Rice, WY wrote:As I am sure you all know, the Second Amendment of the Constitution states that, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Currently, as the freest nation of the world, the MSA upholds the right to bear arms. However, these rights are being constrained in some regions of this great country. Ordinary citizens who have no criminal intent, are being arrested and jailed for violating highly technical and arbitrary gun control laws. American citizens also face a rising amount of violent crime, and are being denied the means to protect themselves. Therefore, I propose to the House a law to help protect American citizens from the threat of persecution from their own government, and to allow them to better defend themselves from criminals.

I. The reopening of interstate sales of long guns.
II. Legalization of ammunition shipments through the M.S.A. Postal Service.
IIa. Ammunition shipments must be properly marked.
III. Removal of the requirement for record keeping on sales of non-armor-piercing ammunition.
IV. Federal protection of transportation of firearms through states where possession of those firearms would otherwise be illegal.
IVa.Persons traveling from one place to another cannot be incarcerated for a firearms offense in a state that has strict gun control laws if the traveler is just passing through (short stops for food and gas), provided that the firearms and ammunition are not immediately accessible, that the firearms are unloaded and, in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment, the firearms are located in a locked container.

President Pro Tempore Joanna Nelson wrote:This bill is hereby moved to the Senate Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for review.

Senator Lucille Rice, WY wrote:This bill has come under criticism by several of my Progressive Hard Left colleagiues, who believe that the assassination of former President Stone somehow vindicated restrictions on gun ownership. This is simply untrue, the man who assassinated the president would not have been affected by any sort of gun control, he could have easy bought a weapon from south of the border. Meanwhile, millions of hard working Americans are being harmed by the growing crime epidemic that is sweeping the nation. These law abiding citizens have no way to defend their lives and property without breaking frivilous laws. If the Left really care about the working class, they would trust them enough to defend themselves. I hope other the other members of the Senate share my sentiments.

1 Neo Conservative vote in favor

Senator Jose Marquez, TX wrote:It is true that President Stone was in favor of easing gun laws, and it is true that the acts of a lone madman with a gun do not reject those efforts, but at this tie the Progressive Moderates cannot support this bill. There are several flaws I see that would need to be corrected. For example, what are we considering a 'long gun', in the context of this bill? Is it everything larger than a hand gun? Automatic or Semi-automatic weaponry? I also have a problem with us legalizing shipment of ammunition through the United States Postal Service, since I doubt the government in Washington would approve of us making laws for them.

As well, I see no reason to remove the requirement of record keeping for sales of non-armor piercing ammunition. Surely it is not that much of a hassle for those business in the profession of selling bullets, and it is undoubtedly useful information to have, in terms of internal national security. And I'm worried about the feasibility of enforcing Clause IVa, which does not sit right with me though I do not have an alternative at this moment.

The Progressive Moderates would like to see these things addressed before we agree to this bill.

Representative Freeman, TX wrote:A long gun is quite simply a gun that needs to be braced by a person's shoulders. The term is defined in past pieces of legislation.

Record keeping is a huge hassle for gun dealers. The ammunition market in the MSA is gigantic, with hundreds of millions of rounds being produced each year. The most used ammunition for sort, .22 caliber, is sold in vast ammounts yet is almost never used in crimes. It is also widely agreed among law enforcement agencies that these record keeping requirments are of little value when fighting crime.

I do not know why you are unsure of section IVa, it is quite clear.

The Progressive Conservatives vote 5 IN FAVOR

Senator Zachary Goldman, Kansas (R-L) wrote:I see myself as a man who supports civil liberties, and the right to bear arms is one such that cannot be ignored, both given its importance in many rural areas as a tool of hunting and traditional culture, and in its role as protection. Like many of my colleagues across the aisle, however, I also support certain restrictions to this right. Reasonable ones. Public safety and crime prevention are grave concerns, ones which must be taken into account. In principle, I agree fully with Senator Rice on this issue, but I am going to be as bold as to propose an amendment to the bill, removing the third clause of the original proposal. While Senator Rice, again, does have a point in regard to this system, the bill stands to gain from treating ammunition record keeping as a separate issue.

Additionally, a clarification is added to article I, the note about non-armor-piercing ammunition from the previous article III is added to the note about postal service shipments, and finally "firearms offense" in the last clause is changed to "firearms possession-related offense", to again make clear the intent.

I hope this will address the concerns of Senator Marquez, whose loyalty to the memory of President Stone I find admirable, given that the other issue of the "long gun" definition has been resolved by Senator Rice.

I. The reopening of interstate sales of non-automatic and semi-automatic long guns, as legally defined by previous acts.
II. Legalization of non-armor-piercing ammunition shipments through the M.S.A. Postal Service.
IIa. Ammunition shipments must be properly marked.
III. Federal protection of transportation of firearms through states where possession of those firearms would otherwise be illegal.
IIIa. Persons travelling from one place to another cannot be incarcerated for a firearms possession-related offense in a state that has strict gun control laws if the traveller is just passing through (short stops for food and gas), provided that the firearms and ammunition are not immediately accessible, that the firearms are unloaded and, in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment, the firearms are located in a locked container.

3 Republican Liberal votes IN FAVOR of the amendment.

Senator Lucille Rice, WY wrote:With some disappointment, I will accept the concession of removing the ammunition registration clause. I will reiterate that registration of ammunition is of no help to law-enforcement, but I recognize that this concession needs to be made in order to pass the rest of the bill. I will make a promise to the American people that I will come back to this issue at a later time.

1 Neo Conservative vote in favor of the amendment.

Senator Jose Marquez, TX wrote:I would like to thank Senator Goldman for his input, and find this bill more palatable for my own tastes, and more in line with the kinds of policies that will benefit our nation as a whole.

5 Progressive Moderate votes IN FAVOR of the proposed amendment.

5 Progressive Conservative votes IN FAVOR of the amendment.

Elijah Kennedy, P-IA wrote:Once again, we see the politics of the right-wing at its finest. They claim to want to defend the Mountain States of America while making it all the easier for the security of the country to be threatened. Until an entirely new bill, with more reasonable amendments applied to the average American, is proposed, I cannot attach my vote this.

2 Progressive Liberals vote AGAINST the amendment and the original bill.

Senator Paula Brewer, OK wrote: Esteemed colleagues,

The Socialist Party believes in the right to bear arms as enshrined in our constitution, which clearly states the need for a well-regulated militia. Organization, ladies and gentlemen, is key in any responsible gun regulation, and it has even bore fruit when deterring vandalism during recent civil strife.

I should, however, point out that sections III and IIIa would, quite simply, trample over States' rights when it comes to their liberty to write and enforce their own gun-related legislation. It is simply a fact that if gun regulations are stricter in some states than in others, then that means that, for better or for worse, the people of said state have decided to democratically legislate in that direction.

The Socialist Party believes in the American value of gun ownership, but it cannot support this bill when it aims to impose a certain set of values, particularly regarding such an important and sensitive topic as guns, to states that may be neither willing nor able to deal with the new legislation; in other words, we do not believe the right to bear arms should win out over basic States' rights, and instead hold that a reasonable compromise can be reached between the two. If this article were to be amended, then maybe we could consider backing it, and even then we have a serious criticism of any project that would increase the ease with which the people could become armed without developing a responsible, patriotic and people-oriented framework towards the establishment of well-regulated citizen militias.

Thank you for listening.

Senator Lucille Rice, WY wrote:Senator Brewer is sorely mistaken in her worries. Sections III and IIIa are covered under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which states that Congress has the power to:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.

Here we can see that the movement of goods across state lines, in this case firearms, is dealt with by the federal government and does not trample on any state rights covered by the Constitution.

It should also be noted that this bill simply protects citizens from unintentionally breaking a law when they are transporting their firearms across state lines, it does not force any state to change their laws.

I would also take issue with Senator Brewer's statement that "do not believe the right to bear arms should win out over basic States' rights." The right of citizens to bear arms should not, and cannot, be violated by any sort of local, state, or federal government. To say otherwise would be supporting tyranny against personal freedoms. Imagine if the right of free speech took a back seat to a state government, a situation that our Founding Fathers intended to avoid.

I would also like to point out the the Commerce Clause was also instrumental in Civil Rights and the desegregation of the MSA. It allowed the federal government to, rightfully, force businesses to stop discriminating against blacks, hispanics, asians, and other minorities. If the Socialist party questions the legitimacy of this bill, then it must also question the legitmacy of the equality which it ostensibly claims to support.

Senator Paula Brewer, OK wrote: Senator Rice, if I may, let's take a step back from grand assertions about freedom and the Constitution and take a look at the actual issue at hand.

The Commerce Clause, as you well pointed out, empowers Congress to regulate commerce along state lines. Indeed, this is the very clause that would allow the implementation of sections I and II of the present bill, for they deal with commerce, which this clause regulates.

Now, while the FOP bill doesn't literally say it's changing state laws, it does do so in a practical sense, that is: de facto. If a state has tight gun control laws, but federal legislation renders it unable to enforce them, then for all practical purposes the federal government has invalidated and made null and void said state's present laws.

That the preceding reasoning is correct is proven, once again, by your very own arguments, Senator Rice. You say this bill won't change state laws, and yet you go on a whole tirade about how state sovereignty regarding gun control is tantamount to tyranny, an opinion that I'm sure the state legislatures of this fine country would be interested in learning. The intent of this bill, now made abundantly clear, is to impose loose gun regulation at the federal level to states which might not be interested in applying such criteria.
None of this, you'll notice, is a matter of commerce. Altering the rules of commerce is entirely this body's prerogative, yes, but the discussion over Sections III and IIIa has so far centered on possession, has it not? Regarding your point about a citizen "unintentionally breaking a law ", the question of ignorance has a long and storied tradition in the study and philosophy of Law, and while in many cases it plays a role in a judge's decision, it's not the same thing to give a reduced sentence or even a favorable ruling to someone who broke the law out of ignorance than to just practically throw away that law altogether. Again, I insist: if you render states powerless to enforce their own gun control legislation, then you are effectively stripping away their sovereignty.

Now, as for the final and rather...well, I don't want to say demagogic and cheap, but certainly not terribly centered on the point at hand, portion of your speech, I've already shown why Section III and IIIa of this bill deal with state sovereignty, not commerce, which would be relevant for sections I and II. Moreover, I...cannot help but point out the inflammatory and frankly base nature of your final statements, which, still clinging to the fallacy that my position somehow opposes the Commerce Clause, say that not supporting your gun bill is the same as not supporting Civil Rights. As I'd like to remind you, the Socialist Party is an energetic campaigner in the Civil Rights movement and has been for quite some time. If you want a serious discussion regarding the role of guns, law enforcement and racial equality in America, I suggest we talk about the disproportionate amount of Black and Hispanic citizens who fall subject to police brutality every day in our country, and how these institutional ills may be countered with grassroots, community-led initiatives to not just arm these communities but empower them to enforce the law of the land themselves. After all, we're both interested in working class self-defense, are we not?

At any rate, thanks again for your response, and to those listening: thank you for you time.