Jump to content
TedderVision
James Grant

Second Amendment Guarantee Act

Recommended Posts

 

Mr. McCready with thanks to Mr. Collins introduced the following bill;


A BILL

To limit the authority of States and localities in the Midwest to regulate conduct, or impose penalties or taxes, in relation to rifles or shotguns.

Be it enacted by the Midwest Regional Legislature

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Second Amendment Guarantee Act” or the "SAGA Act” .

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY OF STATES AND LOCALITIES TO REGULATE CONDUCT IN RELATION TO RIFLES OR SHOTGUNS.

(a) A State or a political subdivision of a State in the Midwest may not impose any regulation, prohibition, or registration or licensing requirement with respect to the design, manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, possession, or marking of a rifle or shotgun that is more restrictive, or impose any penalty, tax, fee, or charge with respect to such a rifle or shotgun or such conduct, in an amount greater, than is provided under Federal law. To the extent that a law of a State or political subdivision of a State in the Midwest, whether enacted before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this subsection, violates the preceding sentence, the law shall have no force or effect. For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘rifle or shotgun’ includes any part of a rifle or shotgun, any detachable magazine or ammunition feeding device, and any type of pistol grip.

(b) In an action brought for damages or relief from a violation of paragraph (a), the court shall award the prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney’s fee in addition to any other damages or relief awarded.”.

Edited by James Grant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Speaker)

Reminder of the recently updated rule: 5. A minimum of 72 hours shall be given for debate on a proposed bill, which may be extended by a majority vote via a motion in the legislature or the discretion of the Speaker. A maximum of 48 hours, after the minimum amount of time for debate has passed, shall be given for the Governor and Regional Leader to submit the respective whips for their parties for any vote on a motion, bill, etc. Whips may be submitted during the debate period.

Please commence debate.

@Dogslife @James Grant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

I rise in opposition to this bill today because I believe in the second amendment. I believe especially in the part that says, "a well-regulated militia." This bill, however, is radical and dangerous. Why? Because it makes it so there can be no regulation on rifles or shotguns. It says so right in the bill,

"A State or a political subdivision of a State in the Midwest may not impose any regulation...of a rifle or shotgun that is more restrictive."

This is dangerous. We need gun control in this country and making it so there is absolutely none in this region what so ever is just stupid and irresponsible. It is not a far left view to say there should be some regulations on guns but it is a radical view to say there shall be no regulation on guns. It is also a radical view to say that no political subdivision of a state, like a city or a county, shall make any regulations. Look at Chicago or Detroit. Those cities have a gun problem and this bill will make it so there are no regulations whatsoever on rifles or shotguns because this bill also voids any previous regulations. That is stupid and this bill is stupid and radical. Therefore I motion to table this bill. 

I yield.

 

(Level 2 aye on motion to table)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

This legislation would not make any firearms devoid of regulation outright, but rather limit it to just federal law. Our governor has said this bill is tyrannical but throughout history we've seen tyrants only ever restrict their populace in regards to guns not enable them to better protect themselves. Our governor has called for several unconstitutional gun control measures and cannot be trusted to protect the Constitutional rights of our citizens. He's already violated their Constitutional rights before without even given anything in the way of an apology. He is a liability and any attempts by him to violate gun rights with his radical unconstitutional agenda must be blocked.

Furthermore, we have many jurisdictions in this region that maintain unconstitutional bans on AR-15s as made clear by statements made by both Justice Scalia and Thomas. We must restore the rights that have been violated to ensure that our citizens can have the very best in self-defense means. AR-15's are not as the governor has said a weapon of war having never been used by any government in combat and they are not uniquely a threat to the public having been used less in homicides than knives, clubs, or bear hands. A vote against this legislation will be a vote to maintain these violations of Constitutional rights.

Gun control demonstrably does not make people safer but rather makes individuals defenseless against those who by their very nature defy laws. Cities such as Chicago and Detroit have problems with violence so much more so than many cities of comparable size because of their strong restrictions on firearms. Government is not the solution to the problem but rather it is the problem. No legislature will protect the populace better than a firearm. We must restore the rights of individuals in our worst off cities so the innocent will stop being targets.

With that all said, I strongly oppose any attempt to table this legislation.

I yield

(Level three nay)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

First I would like to address the majoirty leaders sources. He quotes articles from sources such as the national rifle associated and the national shooting sports foundation. They have a clear motive to putting out these “studies.” 

But if we look to a country with good gun control, Australia, the moment they put in new laws their crimes rates dropped. Gun control does stop crimes. We have seen that it stops crimes. 

My main strife with this bill is that it strips away the rights of localities to make their own gun laws. So places like Chicago, Lincolnwood, Skokie, Evanston, Highland Park, Melrose Park, Riverdale, Dolton, Hazel Crest, and Homewood Illinois will have their assault rifle bans, bans determined by their democratically elected city councils, overturned. Those are just assault rifle bans in illinois. That doesn’t take into effect the bans and other various regulations in literally every single city and every single county in this great region of ours. This is a radical bill. Plain and simple. There is no deep state conspiracy by these county commissioners and city council members to strip your rights or to surpress a rebellion in the future. They just want to keep their constituents safe. For republicans who usually are for local control this is a wierd move for them. They are taking away the rights of local government to make their own regulations. They are making it so there are abosolutely zero regulations. That is radical and rogue. I urge all members of this body who believe in gun control of any kind and all members of this body that believe in the power of local government to stand against this radical bill and vote for the motion to table.

I yield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

AR-15s are not assault rifles and bans on Ar-15s are unconstitutional. I don't care whether it's at the local, state, or federal level stripping second amendment rights to the ownership of an AR-15 should not be tolerated. AR-15s pose no intrinsic threat any more so than any other firearm. They are used less in homicides than handguns.  We definitely need to protect our second amendment rights from politicians who are so uneducated as to say that an AR-15 is an assault rifle. That's why this legislation is so needed. The ignorant should not legislate our rights away demanding more and more gun control as they pretend to care about the second amendment when really they'd be fine with doing away with it and adopting some foreign gun control system. It's unamerican and intolerable.

I yield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

Assault rifle bans are not the only regulations municipalities have enacted. For example, there are many cities and counties who have enacted safe storage laws. There is also general sales tax and taxes on weapons implemented by cities. There are a number of laws that are undeniably constitutional that local cities have passed that this act would simply get rid of. This is an insult to those cities and counties. It is an insult because this majority is trying to rip the rights of local governments away. If the elected officials of a certain area want to pass gun control then we should let them. That is why this body should table this bill. We should table it to protect the rights of this body to make gun control laws in the future and we should table it to protect the rights of localities to make their own laws regarding regulations on firearms.

I yield.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

A study by John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute and John Whitley of the University of Adelaide have found safe storage laws do not make people safer. Instead they make it harder for law abiding gun owners to protect themselves. Furthermore the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws that require “firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times” in District of Columbia v. Heller. The court affirmed that “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home and the Second Amendment “elevates above all other interests” the right “to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”. That makes safe storage laws unconstitutional. Another useless violation of rights that will be removed with this piece of legislation. This bill will do more for the sanctity of the second amendment than anything our governor will do.

If our governor actually cares about local and state government's ability to create laws and not have their laws overridden he'd oppose the Taft-Hartley repeal we're seeing voted on in the House right now, but something tells me he's okay with that because he certainly has kept quiet on the matter. It would repeal right to work laws from the majority of the states in the region. He only cares when it's about pushing things he wants like his unconstitutional gun control agenda. We must stop this agenda and this piece of legislation will do just that.

I yield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

As noted in a dissent filed by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by District of Columbia v. Heller’s author, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, “Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles.” Moreover, the “overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting.” “Under our precedents,” Thomas concluded, “that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.” It is clear that AR-15 bans are unconstitutional but not only do we have a governor that defends them in this region he would want them implemented nationwide. He'd violate the Second Amendment rights of every American if he could. He's already disgraced our region violating the first amendment and having his misdoings brought up to the Supreme Court. How many Constitutional rights will he violate by the end of his term if he had his way? For those that actually have a respect for the Second Amendment this is the bill that will protect it from him.

I yield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

The majoirty leaders can play the tune of assault rifles on repeat all he wants. The fact of the matter is there are types of constitutional gun control measures that will be stripped from local laws. They are denying to local governments the ability to make their own laws. I simply will not stand for it! The local governments deserve to be able to make laws to protect their cities! If you vote against the motion to table then you are killing local governments and you should be damn well ashamed of yourself. 

i yield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

I would like to make a point of order in regards to the unparliamentarian language exhibited by the minority with the usage of the word damn. It is beneath this chamber.

I yield

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker,

Our gun control laws in the region have made us a national example of the futility of gun control. Let's take Chicago for an example.

Chicago.jpg.5da0e11dbe34c4f1e8921aea0f8574a7.jpg

Despite some of the strongest gun control laws in the country we've only seen the violence explode while cities like Houston with do not have such restrictive laws fair much better. We are endangering the lives of many limiting the public's ability to self-defense and we're violating the Second Amendment in the process. This must be rectified but only one party has shown a commitment to that.

I yield

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Speaker)

With a vote of 47 Ayes and 53 Nays the motion to table is defeated. Debate shall continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Speaker, 

In regards to "completely" removing the ability of cities to regulate guns, that statement is simply false.  The bill clearly states in Sec. 2 that this limitation will only take place in relation to shotguns and rifles. I would advice the members to actually read the legislation proposal. Places like Chicago, Baltimore, and Detroit can continue restricting any other guns if they so do please. This bill does not address that. Do not exaggerate the proposition. 

I yield. 

 

OOC: I was unaware of the rules and have since learned my mistake. Disregard this and please delete it @Magenta

 

Edited by Anthony Fernandez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Anthony Fernandez said:

Mr. Speaker, 

In regards to "completely" removing the ability of cities to regulate guns, that statement is simply false.  The bill clearly states in Sec. 2 that this limitation will only take place in relation to shotguns and rifles. I would advice the members to actually read the legislation proposal. Places like Chicago, Baltimore, and Detroit can continue restricting any other guns if they so do please. This bill does not address that. Do not exaggerate the proposition. 

I yield. 

 

OOC: I was unaware of the rules and have since learned my mistake. Disregard this and please delete it @Magenta

 

 

(OOC: No problems, thanks for your interest. Feel free to perhaps publish a press release in your press office on the issue or introduce relevant legislation to the US House hopper!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Speaker)

With a vote of 53 Ayes and 47 Nays, this bill is approved by the legislature and will be forwarded to the Governor for approval or veto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×