Talk:Amendment: The Firearm Regulation Act (Inter)

Amendment: The Firearm Regulation Act (Inter) Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 01/16/2023 5:39 PM

Tabled by John Edwards, KWP, as Chancellor. Amendment: The Firearm Regulation Act (Inter) An Amendment to The Firearm Regulation Act (Inter) with the goal of updating weapon classes under law and providing a clear amount of funding for the enforcement of the law throughout Kodiak. https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/Amendment:_The_Firearm_Regulation_Act_(Inter) Proposed by John Edwards, KWP, Chancellor. Voting is presently set for 30 Jan 2023 Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 01/16/2023 5:39 PM

@Assembly Member Discussion is opened. @Chancellor Mr. Chancellor, please let me know if there are any clerical errors or if you would like anything changed. Patrick Barber

pinned 

a message

to this channel. See all 

pinned messages .

— 01/16/2023 5:59 PM

zcstarwars — 01/16/2023 6:51 PM I propose only hunting rifles Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 01/16/2023 6:52 PM

can you expand on that? zcstarwars — 01/16/2023 7:15 PM Banning all guns that are not hunting rifles for hunting Purposes and having heavy restrictions on them such as needing a permit and former criminals not being allowed to get permits. This includes banning self-defense guns Charlotte Groves (Juliette) — 01/16/2023 7:56 PM On another note, what are Class D and E weapons? This probably needs to be defined. (It seems to be different depending on where, brief google) Patrick Barber — 01/16/2023 7:58 PM Image Charlotte Groves (Juliette) — 01/16/2023 7:58 PM Ah I missed that this amendment started at 1.2! Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 01/16/2023 8:29 PM “Class E: All Other Ballistic Weaponry.” So we can legally own crossbows? How about a trebuchet? John Edwards [KWP] — 01/16/2023 8:32 PM Technically you can own both, you would have to have them registered however. John Edwards [KWP] — 01/16/2023 8:39 PM If anyone is injured from a stray trebuchet ball, we'll know it was your trebuchet "what done it". Tom Westbrook — 01/16/2023 8:43 PM Why should these weapons be permissible at all? Also, if we are permitting registration of these weapons, should we not also have licensing for them? John Edwards [KWP] — 01/16/2023 8:48 PM This is intended to be the same thing. How would you differentiate between registration of firearm ownership and a firearms licence? These weapons have been permissible up to this point. If we ban them outright, we could very likely end up with more riots like last time. Only this time it wouldn't be angry youths, it would be armed gun owners. I'm also planning a gun buy back scheme to reduce the number of guns in private ownership. Luik Oule - Kallamaya [KWP] — 01/16/2023 8:52 PM What about ammunition. Would it be regulated or controlled at all? John Edwards [KWP] — 01/16/2023 8:54 PM Limited to licenced sellers? Luik Oule - Kallamaya [KWP] — 01/16/2023 8:57 PM ok good. i would assume that a kodiaker would need a license to bye ammunition. John Edwards [KWP] — 01/16/2023 9:01 PM It's clear that the existing law is woefully insufficient. I had intended this to be a quick amendment to shore up security in time for the election but it's going to need a lot of work. I'll update the proposal with the suggested changes shortly. Tom Westbrook — 01/16/2023 9:07 PM Registering your ownership of a gun isn’t the same as being licensed to own a gun in the first place. A registered weapon is just a weapon we know about on the database and know who legally owns it. There should be an extra step in this process where individuals are checked to see if they should be allowed to own a gun at all. This is alluded to with the section addressing criminal offenders but I think it isn’t thorough enough John Edwards [KWP] — 01/16/2023 9:08 PM This makes sense and was the original intention. I'll make the adjustments. Tom Westbrook — 01/16/2023 9:09 PM This would tie in nicely with a buy back scheme - people who currently own guns but cannot obtain a license should be entitled to the value of the guns Charlotte Groves (Juliette) — 01/16/2023 9:34 PM I think we ought to make explicit that background checks, mental health assessments are run. At the very minimum background checks, if this is still aiming to be an intermediary law before a bigger bill. Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 01/16/2023 9:43 PM

that's a lot of money potentially being spent, plus a fired gun is worth significantly less than an un-fired gun Patrick Barber — 01/18/2023 6:13 AM I believe that in the expectation of expediency, paying decent rates for a buyback is worth the pricetag. The money isn't being lost. Its being redistributed into the hands of citizens and will still be spent on their needs. Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 01/19/2023 1:15 PM

that sounds good, but I believe that it is generally found that when people get money back from the govt, instead of pumping it into the economy they spend it on debt or they save it shrug Tom Westbrook — 01/19/2023 1:17 PM That money is still being fed back into the economy through paying bills Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 01/19/2023 1:23 PM

not as much, that's all. Tom Westbrook — 01/19/2023 1:24 PM well if the buy back money can go towards their bills then they will have more disposable income to spend in the economy too that money will be going into the economy if it is in the hands of the everyday citizen, which is likely who will seek out this scheme Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 01/19/2023 1:25 PM

maybe. I'm playing devils advocate more than anything else at this point, just thinking of the different angles Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 01/19/2023 1:50 PM

if you have a fun but you aren't licensed, wouldn't it be illegal to have it? and wouldn't whomever sold it to you have completed an illegal sale? Tom Westbrook — 01/19/2023 1:52 PM I think this is something that could be more explicitly addressed in this law - obviously any purchase or sale made before this law was enacted cannot be treated as criminal - however, we could state that individuals have a grace period to either gain a licence or failing that sell their gun to the government before the ownership is considered illegal Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 01/19/2023 2:11 PM

i'm fine with that John Edwards [KWP] — 01/19/2023 8:54 PM Sounds good. I'm making a list of changes to make I hope to make the amendments soon. Pandor X — 01/20/2023 9:44 PM No restrictions on gun owners or types of guns is my viewpoint. Patrick Barber — 01/20/2023 9:44 PM There already exist restrictions in law. Pandor X — 01/20/2023 9:45 PM I know I’ve read it I’m just saying that there shouldn’t be any. Tom Westbrook — 01/20/2023 9:46 PM This is a foolhardy policy stance in light of recent events Luik Oule - Kallamaya [KWP] — 01/20/2023 9:46 PM indeed Patrick Barber — 01/20/2023 9:49 PM I do want to recentre the debate onto the proposal as it stands - that the restrictions fundamentally do not change, but instead an implementation of an ownership registry is enacted. unless the @Chancellor wishes to 'pull the trigger' so to speak on amending this proposal Tom Westbrook — 01/20/2023 9:50 PM I will reiterate that I believe there should also be a licensing procedure in addition to an ownership registry John Edwards [KWP] — 01/20/2023 9:54 PM I intend to add a license feature as this was the intention of the bill. Pandor X — 01/20/2023 9:55 PM This is a futile approach Criminals won’t be registering the guns they acquire We are going to spend more money where it’s in fact not needed to be spent why not put more funding into our Law Enforcement. Patrick Barber — 01/20/2023 9:59 PM the point isn't to expand criminality - its to empower the social structures. It is illegal to drive drunk - criminals won't publish their intention to do so but by making it an active target, we empower community police, security guards, bartenders, friends and co-workers to aide in maintaining a healthy social order The same goes for registering firearms. By demanding their registration, we empower society at large to participate in the regulation of their own safety John Edwards [KWP] — 01/20/2023 10:02 PM This is an old argument that has been proven wrong time and again. It's true criminals don't register their firearms, but the volume of firearm crimes drops dramatically. Plus new firearms are then tracked so no (or very few) new firearms are making their way into criminal hands. Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 01/20/2023 10:03 PM Quite frankly it’s a proven fact that heavy restrictions on firearms leads to little to no gun violence. John Edwards [KWP] — 01/20/2023 10:04 PM This is also an argument that has come up time and again. Our police currently have so much funding that they're practically all driving Lamborghini's. Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 01/20/2023 10:04 PM I think quantifiable numbers representing lives saved is far more important than libertarian ideals. Pandor X — 01/20/2023 10:05 PM Hmmm idk I will be voting against this but it seems it will have enough support to pass. Immanuel von Zeppelin — 01/21/2023 12:10 AM I demand proof. I will say just one word: Switzerland. The important thing is not the presence of weapons, but the rules of their use. John Edwards [KWP] — 01/21/2023 12:30 AM Australia Once we introduced gun control, the incidents of gun crime dropped almost to zero. The difficulty in acquiring untraceable firearms makes them not worth the effort. Gun crime still exists but it's drastically lower than before gun control. John Edwards [KWP] — 01/21/2023 1:25 AM Switzerland have the same rules as this bill. Immanuel von Zeppelin — 01/21/2023 1:46 AM Image Patrick Barber — 01/21/2023 1:48 AM Image Patrick Barber — 01/21/2023 1:49 AM this chart isn't meaningful because we're talking specifically about guns - not all murders in total Immanuel von Zeppelin — 01/21/2023 1:51 AM I have just done a little research with the materials of the Australian Institute of Criminology and compiled the following graph. As far as I could understand, guns were banned in Australia in 1996. And the number of deaths in the entire 26 million Australia fell by only 25 murders. But the number of deaths continued to fall. The drop in the crime rate due to the prohibition of weapons would have been isolated. But we are seeing a long-term drop in the crime rate. It means that something other than the prohibition of weapons is acting to reduce the crime rate. Patrick Barber — 01/21/2023 1:53 AM That cannot be correct then because the population of australia in 1997 was only 18.5 million Immanuel von Zeppelin — 01/21/2023 1:54 AM You can kill with your hands. You can kill with a knife. You can kill with a stick. With the prohibition of weapons, the number of murders from weapons decreased, but the number of deaths itself. Immanuel von Zeppelin — 01/21/2023 1:54 AM This only proves my opinion. Patrick Barber — 01/21/2023 1:55 AM population increased by 50% and murder went down proves your point? Patrick Barber — 01/21/2023 1:57 AM The number of deaths clearly went down per capita. If you can grow a nation by 50% and have murder crime go down, that is clearly going down. Not to mention how much more difficult it is to murder someone with a knife or hands or a stick. John Edwards [KWP] — 01/21/2023 2:04 AM To quote A fictional TV host, unless we can stop ALL murders, we shouldn't bother? Immanuel von Zeppelin — 01/21/2023 2:05 AM Look at the graph. He points out that the number of deaths does not depend on the number of the population, although it should be the opposite. So, it is incorrect to talk about the influence of the presence of weapons in the population, because even the number of people does not affect the number of murders. This indicator is influenced by something else, something that happened somewhere in 2000. John Edwards [KWP] — 01/21/2023 2:06 AM Plus we're not just talking about straight deaths, but the capacity of one person to kill many, in this case, in the form of terrorist activity. Immanuel von Zeppelin — 01/21/2023 2:07 AM I argue that the decrease in the number of murders is so insignificant that either the ban on carrying weapons is simply ineffective, or something else influenced the decrease in crime in 1996. John Edwards [KWP] — 01/21/2023 2:08 AM We're not banning guns, just ensuring that they are owned with permits and licenses, as per Switzerland, Australia, most gun ownership countries. Immanuel von Zeppelin — 01/21/2023 2:22 AM Now I'm in a decisive stupor. What's the point of the last five hours of discussion if you're just for gun registration, like me? I am also in favor of permitted, but registered weapons. It seems that I have inattentively read your arguments. In that case, I apologize for the time spent. John Edwards [KWP] — 01/21/2023 2:25 AM A debate on the gun buy back scheme might be a different matter Patrick Barber — 01/21/2023 2:27 AM It happens to all of us 😂 When a debate goes over days it's easy to get off track Jonn Stevens (DPPK) — 01/21/2023 8:23 PM I think this is a great bill personally. in my opinion the only real guns people should be able to own is hand guns and hunting rifles witch I believe i this act allows no normal citizen needs a Ak or other gun like it Patrick Barber — 01/21/2023 8:54 PM I think the majority of the concerns of this proposal have been dealt with. If there are no objections, I will begin the vote in 24 hours.

• recognising that some members want to expand some aspects of the Act which are outside the purview of this specific proposal and the intentions of the author.

John Edwards [KWP] — 01/21/2023 9:40 PM @Assembly President, I have the adjustments to the amendment to add licensing:

Repeal and replace the Firearm Registration Act (Inter) with The Firearm Registration Act (650)

Article 2 – Ownership license 2.1 – All firearms owners are required by law to obtain a “Firearms Owners License” that states the owners name, picture, licence number and the activities permitted by the license (collector, agricultural, competition, etc.). A License is valid for 3 years. 2.2 – A Firearm owner is not permitted to possess any firearm without a valid license. Any owner found in possession of a firearm is required to be able to produce a Firearm license for verification upon request by authorities. 2.3 - Possession of a firearm without a valid license is a criminal offense. 2.4 – The cost of obtaining a firearms licence is to set at ₣50 per owner. 2.5 – During the initial 6 month implementation period, there is to be no charge to obtaining a firearms license. The intention is that once the implementation period is over, 2.5 can be repealed without affecting the majority of the bill. Patrick Barber — 01/21/2023 9:47 PM is this something i need to edit for you? John Edwards [KWP] — 01/21/2023 9:47 PM I can make the adjustments. Just adding it here for discussion. Done Patrick Barber — 01/21/2023 9:54 PM thanks Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 01/21/2023 10:07 PM

Question, are all guns to be considered firearms? For instance, in parts of the US, reproduction guns from the 19th century, even though they fire and work, are not legally considered firearms, but “antiques”, and are therefore not subject to standard firearm laws. John Edwards [KWP] — 01/21/2023 10:07 PM In this case, yes. I'm drawing from my own license where I have a number of antiques under a collectors permit. Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 01/21/2023 10:09 PM

Interesting. Where I grew up a collectors permit wasn’t a thing John Edwards [KWP] — 01/21/2023 10:09 PM I'm not sure whether it would come under Class D or E but they'd still be covered. Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 01/21/2023 10:09 PM

It was just a possible loophole I thought of that I thought I would mention 😛 John Edwards [KWP] — 01/21/2023 10:09 PM Do I need to tighten the wording? Patrick Barber — 01/21/2023 10:10 PM tangentially related - i wanted to keep my great grandfather's shotgun from 1910 as an heirloom and the only meaningful way to do that would be to concrete the mechanism keeping it operational would be too financially and regulatorily onerous and I would still need to register it Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 01/21/2023 10:12 PM

That’s damn near tragic John Edwards [KWP] — 01/21/2023 10:12 PM When I inherited my fathers guns, I had to hand them over to the police for safe keeping until the license could be issued. 9/10ths of them were accidentally destroyed by mislabelling. Including the 1600's spanish shotguns. $20,000 worth down the tube. Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 01/21/2023 10:12 PM

That doesn’t seem at all fair Or right Patrick Barber — 01/21/2023 10:13 PM John's circumstance is unfair, but I don't feel like mine is that unfair. if the price of less gun crime is I don't have a gun - that makes sense to me John Edwards [KWP] — 01/21/2023 10:19 PM It was a lot of a headache to have them as there were quite a lot and I didn't have appropriate storage. Plus my wife didn't want them on the property for good reason. So in a sense it was something of a relief to have the problem taken off my hands. Can't say I blame her, when I was a kid, I broke into the gun safe to play with the pepperbox. I got grounded for a LONG time for that one. But I'm getting offtrack. Patrick Barber — 01/21/2023 10:21 PM we should move this convo into general I think Martang B. Eðeltreow (Mengtian) — 01/21/2023 10:22 PM Black powder permits should be separate, if Kodiak has an historical Reenactor tradition John Edwards [KWP] — 01/21/2023 10:36 PM Wouldn't it come under collector? Immanuel von Zeppelin — 01/21/2023 10:49 PM Personally, I have no more questions about this bill. Klaus Mikaelson OP

— 01/21/2023 11:05 PM

I think it's going to be vastly different based on what IRL country we're looking at and where in that country we're looking John Edwards [KWP] — 01/21/2023 11:52 PM Black powder could be a classification of license alongside collector, competition, agricultural. etc. Pandor X — 01/22/2023 3:10 AM That’s too much John Edwards [KWP] — 01/22/2023 3:13 AM You'll need to be more specific. Pandor X — 01/22/2023 3:14 AM Are you going to classify black powder for a license? John Edwards [KWP] — 01/22/2023 3:15 AM As in "black powder weapons" eg, matchlock, flintlock, musket etc. Traditionally anything that loads the powder separately to the bullet. Pandor X — 01/22/2023 3:19 AM This is too much John Edwards [KWP] — 01/22/2023 3:20 AM In what way? Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 01/22/2023 3:24 AM I really don’t see any real reason to regulate powder based weapons like muskets; I don’t think any ones been killed by those since 1776 (im joking but in all seriousness nobody is using powder based weapons in terrorist attacks). Pandor X — 01/22/2023 3:25 AM I agree Patrick Barber — 01/22/2023 3:25 AM I think if you took a musket ball to the chest you might feel differently. Just because it can't be used for mass harm, doesn't mean it isn't a medium to long range weapon Pandor X — 01/22/2023 3:25 AM I think this is an exaggeration We must be practical John Edwards [KWP] — 01/22/2023 3:29 AM I see what you are getting at. Originally they would just come under the heading of "collector" and encompass most class E weapons. I'm trying to be practical by not having to draft separate exclusions for specific weapons. I can see the point for re-enactors but it's not a major leap to have one more classification. John Edwards [KWP] — 01/22/2023 3:48 AM I acknowledge that antique weapons are not likely to be used, however they do still fall under the heading of "ballistic weaponry" ie class E weapons. I figured the easiest solution is a collectors license, which would be free if the collector applies for it in the first 6 months of roll out of the program. Pandor X — 01/22/2023 3:55 AM Hmmmm Alright my colleagues. I think these are some tough gun laws Patrick Barber — 01/23/2023 10:10 PM Did the @Chancellor which to make any further changes? John Edwards [KWP] — 01/23/2023 10:13 PM I'll leave it as written. The black powder weapon permits is, I think, covered under collectors. Patrick Barber — 01/23/2023 10:16 PM I think with that I will begin the vote as its been some days since there have been any substantial changes EasyPoll BOT

— 01/23/2023 10:16 PM

Question Do you approve of the Amendment to the Firearm Refulation Act?

Choices 🇦 Aye 🇧 Nay 🇨 Abstain

Final Result 🇦 ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░ [13 • 81%] 🇧 ▓░░░░░░░░░ [2 • 13%] 🇨 ▓░░░░░░░░░ [1 • 6%] 16 users voted

Settings

alarm_clock: Poll already ended (12 hours ago)

spy: Anonymous Poll

one: allowed choice

lock: No other votes allowed

Allowed roles: @Assembly Member Poll ID: 216121e7 Patrick Barber — 01/23/2023 10:17 PM @Assembly Member The poll has been called. Debate is suspended. The vote shall remain active for 72 hours. The proposal is linked in the pinned post. Please vote within that time. Thank you Klaus Mikaelson OP

— Today at 10:17 AM

@Assembly Member With 13 votes in favor, 2 against and 1 abstention, this Amendment is declared passed. This will be archived in 24 hours.