• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A legislation proposal on accountability

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Proposed:

  • The person identified as the current registered lawful owner of a firearm shall be held strictly liable for crimes committed using their firearm. Their liability will be criminal.
  • The state's burden of proof will be that concomitant with strict liability, that is, to show (1) who the current owner is and (2) that the current owner's firearm was indeed used to commit certain classes of crime -- rape, murder, attempted murder, battery, robbery, assault, breaking and entering, and vandalism, along with conspiracy to commit any of those.

  • The incarceration penalties to which currently registered owners will be held culpable will be one half of the maximum sentence allowed were they the actual perpetrator of the crime committed, provided the currently registered owner is not the current owner of the firearm.
    • The incarceration penalty cannot be reduced or otherwise truncated, suspended, etc.
    • Minors' exception: In instances where minors obtain a firearm and with it inflict harm on themselves or others, the incarceration sentence will be the full maximum allowed by law were the owner also the perpetrator of the crime.
    • Corporations: If the owner is a corporation, the parent and subsidiary organization(s) CEO(s), COO(s), and president (or substantively comparable executive principals) in both the parent and applicable subsidiary(s) will be held jointly and individually criminally culpable.
  • The fines current owners will have levided be:
    • Private citizens: No fines will be levied.
    • Businesses and other organizations: If the firearm in question was, at the time of the crime's commission, registered to a business or other organizations, the fine will be $1M per injury and $10M per death that the business' firearm was used to make happen.
    • Fines are due immediately upon conviction. Upon becoming 30 days past due, unpaid fines accrue compound penalty interest at the rate of 1% per month.
    • The fines stipulated above cannot be reduced.
  • Loss/Theft Exclusion: Individuals who and organizations that report their firearms as lost or stolen will not be held culpable, provided they (1) file the report, or can show documentation of having notified law enforcement officers of the weapon's loss/theft, prior to the crime's commission. and (2) allow. without a search warrant, law enforcement officers to examine the property to which they hold title/lease and from which their gun was stolen or lost.
    • In order to qualify for this exclusion, if a gun owner lacks title to the property from which they allege the gun was lost/stolen, the owner must obtain that property owner's authorization for a warrantless search. Barring that, the owner can report the item lost from any property to which s/he holds title or lease.
    • Individuals and organizations who, in any given three year period, report as lost more than one firearm shall have their right to fabricate, transport, own, possess and/or purchase firearms suspended for three years.
    • Assault Exclusion: Individuals who are incapacitated by another individual who, in turn, absconds with the victim's firearm(s) and uses it to commit a noted crime will not be held accountable per the above, provided the assaulted individual files an affidavit attesting to who incapacitated them and that there was no other person who could reasonably reported the theft on their behalf.
  • Estate Transfers of Title: Upon a registered gun owner's death, title to their firearms passes immediately in accordance with either the decedent's will (filed with the court) or the provisions of state law, whichever prevails at the time of death.
  • Registry Usage: Access to and use/distribution of registrant information is permitted only in instances of a firearm's having been used unlawfully. In such instances, information pertaining only to the firearm used may be accessed and/or distributed.

If you don't like the above proposed legislation, what would you want in exchange for acquiescing to the proposal's terms?
 
Last edited:
Proposed:

  • The person identified as the current registered lawful owner of a firearm shall be held strictly liable for crimes committed using their firearm. Their liability will be criminal.
  • The state's burden of proof will be that concomitant with strict liability, that is, to show (1) who the current owner is and (2) that the current owner's firearm was indeed used to commit certain classes of crime -- rape, murder, attempted murder, battery, robbery, assault, breaking and entering, and vandalism, along with conspiracy to commit any of those.

  • The incarceration penalties to which currently registered owners will be held culpable will be one half of the maximum sentence allowed were they the actual perpetrator of the crime committed, provided the currently registered owner is not the current owner of the firearm.
    • The incarceration penalty cannot be reduced or otherwise truncated, suspended, etc.
    • Minors' exception: In instances where minors obtain a firearm and with it inflict harm on themselves or others, the incarceration sentence will be the full maximum allowed by law were the owner also the perpetrator of the crime.
    • Corporations: If the owner is a corporation, the parent and subsidiary organization(s) CEO(s), COO(s), and president (or substantively comparable executive principals) in both the parent and applicable subsidiary(s) will be held jointly and individually criminally culpable.
  • The fines current owners will have levided be:
    • Private citizens: No fines will be levied.
    • Businesses and other organizations: If the firearm in question was, at the time of the crime's commission, registered to a business or other organizations, the fine will be $1M per injury and $10M per death that the business' firearm was used to make happen.
    • Fines are due immediately upon conviction. Upon becoming 30 days past due, unpaid fines accrue compound penalty interest at the rate of 1% per month.
    • The fines stipulated above cannot be reduced.
  • Loss/Theft Exclusion: Individuals who and organizations that report their firearms as lost or stolen will not be held culpable, provided they (1) file the report, or can show documentation of having notified law enforcement officers of the weapon's loss/theft, prior to the crime's commission. and (2) allow. without a search warrant, law enforcement officers to examine the property to which they hold title/lease and from which their gun was stolen or lost.
    • In order to qualify for this exclusion, if a gun owner lacks title to the property from which they allege the gun was lost/stolen, the owner must obtain that property owner's authorization for a warrantless search. Barring that, the owner can report the item lost from any property to which s/he holds title or lease.
    • Individuals and organizations who, in any given three year period, report as lost more than one firearm shall have their right to fabricate, transport, own, possess and/or purchase firearms suspended for three years.
    • Assault Exclusion: Individuals who are incapacitated by another individual who, in turn, absconds with the victim's firearm(s) and uses it to commit a noted crime will not be held accountable per the above, provided the assaulted individual files an affidavit attesting to who incapacitated them and that there was no other person who could reasonably reported the theft on their behalf.
  • Estate Transfers of Title: Upon a registered gun owner's death, title to their firearms passes immediately in accordance with either the decedent's will (filed with the court) or the provisions of state law, whichever prevails at the time of death.
  • Registry Usage: Access to and use/distribution of registrant information is permitted only in instances of a firearm's having been used unlawfully. In such instances, information pertaining only to the firearm used may be accessed and/or distributed.

If you don't like the above proposed legislation, what would you want in exchange for acquiescing to the proposal's terms?

There are already "enhancements" aplenty in many jurisdictions.
 
If you don't like the above proposed legislation, what would you want in exchange for acquiescing to the proposal's terms?

I would never acquiesce to the proposal's terms, therefore there is NOTHING I would offer in exchange for such terms.

1. I completely oppose the registration of firearms.

2. The individual who uses a gun for criminal purposes should be solely responsible for his/her actions, regardless of who actually owned the gun.

3. Gun owners are already liable for criminal negligence.
 
Last edited:
I would never acquiesce to the proposal's terms, therefore there is NOTHING I would offer in exchange for such terms.
Well, then, there really is no substantive contribution to advance the conversation that you have to offer to this thread's discourse. That is what it is.
 
Well, then, there really is no substantive contribution to advance the conversation that you have to offer to this thread's discourse. That is what it is.

You are not going to get anyone who is a 2nd amendment advocate to support registration and warrant-less searches.
 
Last edited:
Well, then, there really is no substantive contribution to advance the conversation that you have to offer to this thread's discourse. That is what it is.

Actually, you proposed a question, in 2 parts:

1. "If you don't like the above proposed legislation," (I don't like the proposed legislation.)

2. "what would you want in exchange for acquiescing to the proposal's terms?"

a. The word "acquiesce" is defined as:

To accept, comply, or submit tacitly or passively.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acquiesce

Accept something reluctantly but without protest.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/acquiesce

b. You are asking what WE (despite not liking the proposal) are willing to trade for in order to "accept, comply, or submit tacitly or passively, reluctantly but without protest" to your proposal. :roll:

You did not phrase a question asking what we would want to change, modify, add, subtract, or otherwise adjust in your proposal in order to come to a compromise.

You asked what we would want in exchange, despite not liking it, to simply accept it.

My answer was on point. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
I would never acquiesce to the proposal's terms, therefore there is NOTHING I would offer in exchange for such terms.

1. I completely oppose the registration of firearms.

2. The individual who uses a gun for criminal purposes should be solely responsible for his/her actions, regardless of who actually owned the gun.

3. Gun owners are already liable for criminal negligence.

Pretty much in full agreement with the Captain. This proposal would never make it through unless Democrats held a 2/3 majority.

Edit: lol, I just read it again. Is this seriously saying that a CEO would be responsible if an employee loses a company gun? Good Luck finding any job as a security guard.
 
Last edited:
Actually, you proposed a question, in 2 parts:

1. "If you don't like the above proposed legislation," (I don't like the proposed legislation.)

2. "what would you want in exchange for acquiescing to the proposal's terms?"

a. The word "acquiesce" is defined as:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acquiesce

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/acquiesce

b. You are asking what WE (despite not liking the proposal) are willing to trade for in order to "accept, comply, or submit tacitly or passively, reluctantly but without protest" to your proposal. :roll:

You did not phrase a question asking what we would want to change, modify, add, subtract, or otherwise adjust in your proposal in order to come to a compromise.

You asked what we would want in exchange, despite not liking it, to simply accept it.

My answer was on point. :shrug:

Actually, you proposed a question, in 2 parts:

1. "If you don't like the above proposed legislation," (I don't like the proposed legislation.) what would you want in exchange for acquiescing to the proposal's terms?
Actually, it's not a two part question. It's a one-part question with a conditional predicate. Nonetheless, your answer was, quite literally, "nothing." Well, believe it or not, I could have inferred that much had you simply not posted in the thread.
I would never acquiesce to the proposal's terms, therefore there is NOTHING I would offer in exchange for such terms.
Thus, as I said:
Well, then, there really is no substantive contribution ...you have to offer to this thread's discourse. That is what it is.
 
Last edited:
You are not going to get anyone who is a 2nd amendment advocate to support registration and warrant-less searches.

Perhaps that is so....we shall see.

Frankly, however, I'm not asking anyone to support, in an active sense, the proposed terms. I'm asking what they'd accept in exchange for acquiescing to them.
 
There are already "enhancements" aplenty in many jurisdictions.

I'm not sure I know what you mean.

I know what enhancements are, but you've scare quoted the term, and I don't know what you mean by having done so.
 
Pretty much in full agreement with the Captain. This proposal would never make it through unless Democrats held a 2/3 majority.

Edit: lol, I just read it again. Is this seriously saying that a CEO would be responsible if an employee loses a company gun? Good Luck finding any job as a security guard.

The proposed language makes possible the potential for a CEO facing such a penalty. Perhaps you should read again the exceptions.
 
If you don't like the above proposed legislation, what would you want in exchange for acquiescing to the proposal's terms?

Just for sake of conversation:

1. Bans on classes of firearms of any degree will be unconstitutional at all levels of government, and any legislator who proposes such will be immediately removed from office and charged with treason.
2. Nationwide Constitutional carry.
3. NFA 1934, GCA 1968, Hughes Amendment, Brady Bill and Lautenberg Amendment overturned.
4. For any police activity related to enforcing your proposals found to be in error or committed with deliberate malfeasance, the officers involved and their complete chain of command shall be held responsible for felony Constitutional rights violations, to be immediately dismissed from this police force and tried for their crimes.
5. Likewise for any prosecuting attorneys.
6. No more gun free zones on public property.

There's a start.
 
I'm not sure I know what you mean.

I know what enhancements are, but you've scare quoted the term, and I don't know what you mean by having done so.

You are speaking of firearms.

You know there are firearm enhancements to the punishment.... Right?

Don't let the quotes scare you.
 
Last edited:
Well, then, there really is no substantive contribution to advance the conversation that you have to offer to this thread's discourse. That is what it is.

IOW, don't engage in this thread unless we agree?
 
Just for sake of conversation:

1. Bans on classes of firearms of any degree will be unconstitutional at all levels of government, and any legislator who proposes such will be immediately removed from office and charged with treason.
2. Nationwide Constitutional carry.
3. NFA 1934, GCA 1968, Hughes Amendment, Brady Bill and Lautenberg Amendment overturned.
4. For any police activity related to enforcing your proposals found to be in error or committed with deliberate malfeasance, the officers involved and their complete chain of command shall be held responsible for felony Constitutional rights violations, to be immediately dismissed from this police force and tried for their crimes.
5. Likewise for any prosecuting attorneys.
6. No more gun free zones on public property.

There's a start.

Well, that's a better reply than "nothing," which is what the other response I got.

I'm not familiar with all the legislation you noted, and you didn't bother to give a link to them. It'll take some time to get up to speed on them. As for the others:
  • Item 1: I'm okay with most of that. The notion of preempting the legislative process isn't about what I think; it's just not an option.
  • Item 2: Fine
  • Item 4: I'd need to discuss that with you. I don't mind the principle, but I need some contextual clarifications of what you said.
  • Item 5: Depends on what you say about #4
  • Item 6: Fine.
 
You are speaking of firearms.

You know there are firearm enhancements to the punishment.... Right?

Don't let the quotes scare you.
I still don't know what you're getting at. "Firearm enhancements" to what "the punishment?" There's no such thing in my proposal; my proposal has only the baseline provisions and various exceptions and constraints, none of which are "firearm enhancements." What are you talking about vis-a-vis my proposal?
 
Nothing.

Proposal rejected.

Well, if that's the mind you're of, why did you bother writing out six items in post 12? You could have just said, "Nothing," or better still, posted nothing which is every bit as good as saying, "Nothing," and requires less effort.
 
Perhaps that is so....we shall see.

Frankly, however, I'm not asking anyone to support, in an active sense, the proposed terms. I'm asking what they'd accept in exchange for acquiescing to them.

i want you to submit to leavenworth...and spend the next 40 years there voluntarily in prison

now i know you dont want to do so, so what can i do to make you want to acquiesce to my terms?

come on, what would it take?

see the irony?
 
Well, if that's the mind you're of, why did you bother writing out six items in post 12? You could have just said, "Nothing," or better still, posted nothing which is every bit as good as saying, "Nothing," and requires less effort.

He not me.
 
Well, if that's the mind you're of, why did you bother writing out six items in post 12? You could have just said, "Nothing," or better still, posted nothing which is every bit as good as saying, "Nothing," and requires less effort.

Post #12 not mine.

Proposal still rejected.
 
I still don't know what you're getting at. "Firearm enhancements" to what "the punishment?" There's no such thing in my proposal; my proposal has only the baseline provisions and various exceptions and constraints, none of which are "firearm enhancements." What are you talking about vis-a-vis my proposal?

Intentional ignorance noted. I did not state the enhancements were in your proposal. I noted they already existed.
 
i want you to submit to leavenworth...and spend the next 40 years there voluntarily in prison

now i know you dont want to do so, so what can i do to make you want to acquiesce to my terms?

come on, what would it take?

see the irony?
Quite frankly, I'm not so selfish that were you seriously willing to accept my submitting to your demand in return for your acquiescing to the proposal I offered, I would submit to incarceration. I would because I know that gun owners being held accountable is more important than is whether I, one person, has to make a sacrifice to obtain that. The proposal isn't about me, and I know that.
 
Back
Top Bottom