Youth and Government-- need help

L

Lkwinnipesaukee

Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Messages
158
Likes
1
Location
Worcester County
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Youth and Government--UPDATED 3/3!!!

Hey guys,
I'm a member of a YMCA/school group called Youth and Government. long story short, its basically a mock government. We create bills, go through the entire process with other kids around the state (MA), just like the real guys. Lots of fun.

So I have to write a bill that will stir the pot a little (more fun that way). It should be something that people will want to debate over. So I thought what better than a gun related bill?[smile]

I need your help. I need ideas for a bill that I could convince (mostly democratic kids) to pass. I was thinking lifting the AWB, or getting rid of the FID/LTC system and making gun laws in MA 'Vermont Style', although that bill would probably get butchered and not even make it out of the House.

Any ideas?


Thanks, I REALLY appreciate it[grin] [grin] [grin]
 
Last edited:
heh, sounds like a great idea for Mock Govenment [smile]

Make sure to site crime rates in VT, ME, and NH for support. When they mention population dencity, talk about Seattle. It has about the same population as Boston. As a big city you can assume similar ethnic and economical diversity, presence of gangs and drugs ect. Big difference is Seattle is "Shall Issue" vs. Boston which...well let's be frank, is "Won't Issue".

I did some quick research on it a while back. Turns out that in the study I found Seattle has MORE crime than Bean-Town. At first I was disapointed untill I looked at the individual crime rates. Turns out Seattle has a VERY low incidence of VIOLENT crime. So you are more likely to have your car stolen in Seattle, but in Boston you are more likely to have your car stolen WHILE YOU'RE IN IT. Rape, Murder, and Assault are ALL much higher.

Also note that the big difference in Seattle and Boston is climate. The higher crime rate shows that Seattle Goblins aren't afraid of the rain (they say nice weather has higher crime...dunno if that's true) but they are afraid of lawful citizens who carry firearms.

keep us posted! And make sure to do a lot of research, and cite references. Probably the left-minded people who will be against you will just go for "I think.." or "I feel..." type scenarios....just ask if they can back any of it up...and be able to back everything you say up with proven results.

Knock it out of the park!!!! [smile]

Arrrrr

-Weer'd Beard
 
This is where we need Scriviner and Cross-X to get on this thread. They both will be able to help with some great Ideas and wordings...

I would love to have you report what happens as you go along. Maybe even start by removing the FA-10s. Find out how often this system is being used. If it's causing wasted funds. Funds being eaten up by printing and such for something that's not helping with the battle against illegal gun ownership.
 
Lkwinnipesaukee said:
I was thinking lifting the AWB, or getting rid of the FID/LTC system and making gun laws in MA 'Vermont Style', although that bill would probably get butchered and not even make it out of the House.
Click to expand...

Here is some info to use for awb.

Nationally, "assault weapons" were used in 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of all violent crime before the enactment of any national or state AWB. - Gary Kleck, "targeting Guns", 1997, compliation of 48 metropolitan police departments from 1980 to 1994.

In the first year that the ban was lifted, murders declined 3.6% and violent crime by 1.7% - FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, preliminary summary, 2004.

Even weapons misclassified as "assault weapons" (common in the former Federal and California "assault weapon" confiscations) are used in less then 1% of all homicides. - FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1993

All this info was pulled from "Gun Facts 4.1" copyright Guy Smith, 2006. You may find more usful info there as well.
 
Get rid of the 10 round max capacity.

Give it a "nice", catchy name like "Bill to provide for ample protection of citizenry" or something like that.

Keep it simple.

Then again, they don't enforce current laws, so how about a bill asking them to do that?
 
Update--

I'm submitting my bill tomorrow. "AN ACT RELATING TO THE CITIZEN'S RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IN MASSACHUSETTS". It closely resembles VT gun laws.

It basically calls for Section 121 through Section 131P of Chapter 140 of the MGLs to be appealed (wipes out FID, LTC, ABC, XYZ, assualt weapon definitions, etc.)

Then all the definitions are reworded.

Then it legalizes purchase and possession of all guns, and legalized CCW if certain requirements are met (NRA course completed, not prohibited under the GCA 1968, and over 18).

It's a total mess right now, and it'll most likely be tabled and not see any action, but whatever.

I do have a question though. Can I just say, "Section 1. Section 121 through Section 131P of Chapter 140 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby repealed."? Or do I have to spell out everything I want repealed? If I do, it makes the bill about 100 pages.... Could I just submit an addendum with the text of the laws?

I should also mention there is a guy whose bill is to ban ALL handguns in the state. If there is any debate, it should be fun.
 
Last edited:
Lkwinnipesaukee said:
Update--

I'm submitting my bill tomorrow. "AN ACT RELATING TO THE CITIZEN'S RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IN MASSACHUSETTS". It closely resembles VT gun laws.

I should also mention there is a guy whose bill is to ban ALL handguns in the state. If there is any debate, it should be fun.
Click to expand...
Good luck!

But I think you ought to take Coyote33's advice:
Coyote33 said:
Give it a "nice", catchy name like "Bill to provide for ample protection of citizenry" or something like that.
Click to expand...
Slip it by the anti's while they're not looking. THAT would be a REAL lesson in how government works! Maybe "An Act Relating To The Militia of Massachusetts" or something like that.
 
Lkwinnipesaukee said:
Update--

I'm submitting my bill tomorrow. "AN ACT RELATING TO THE CITIZEN'S RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IN MASSACHUSETTS". It closely resembles VT gun laws.

It basically calls for Section 121 through Section 131P of Chapter 140 of the MGLs to be appealed (wipes out FID, LTC, ABC, XYZ, assualt weapon definitions, etc.)

Then all the definitions are reworded.

Then it legalizes purchase and possession of all guns, and legalized CCW if certain requirements are met (NRA course completed, not prohibited under the GCA 1968, and over 18).

It's a total mess right now, and it'll most likely be tabled and not see any action, but whatever.

I do have a question though. Can I just say, "Section 1. Section 121 through Section 131P of Chapter 140 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby repealed."? Or do I have to spell out everything I want repealed? If I do, it makes the bill about 100 pages.... Could I just submit an addendum with the text of the laws?

I should also mention there is a guy whose bill is to ban ALL handguns in the state. If there is any debate, it should be fun.
Click to expand...

The correct form of a statutory repealer is:

"Section four of chapter one-hundred thirty nine of the General Laws, as inserted by chapter forty-six of the acts of 1998, is hereby repealed."

or

"Section four of chapter one-hundred thirty nine of the General Laws, as inserted by chapter forty-six of the acts of 1998 and thereafter amended, is hereby repealed."

Note that numbers are spelled out (except usually for years) and, except at the front of a sentence, "section" and "chapter" are lower case (and written out in full).

Inclusives would be phrased as follows:

"So much of chapter one-hundred thirty nine of the General Laws as appears in sections thirty-one through ninety-seven A, inclusive, as inserted by chapter forty-six of the acts of 1998, is hereby repealed."

A bill may not have an attachment or addendum.

The preamble to any bill is:

"Be it enacted by the General Court, as follows:"
 
^^ Thanks!!

Question though-- what does "as inserted by chapter forty-six of the acts of 1998" mean?


I believe the entire premble is:
AN ACT TO/AN ACT RELATING TO
(then in my case) Be it enacted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts YMCA Youth Legislature as follows:
 
Last edited:
Just to add my 2 cents i think having an LTC/FID are important in a state. I def agree it should be "shall issue" unlike what we have here in the rebulic of Mass. At least they can run you to make sure you are not some gang banger or you just came out of a mental home for 30 years or sumtin who can walk into a gun store and come out wit an AR. Dont take it the wrong way and think im some bleeding heart liberal becuase i def am not. I just think if you dont have any felonies and whatnot you should have an LTC/FID. all should be no restricitons.
 
Everything enacted by the General Court in a session becomes Chapter whatever of the Acts of what year it was. These are known in the trade as "session laws", and the shorthand form of citation is St. XXX, ch. YYY, where XXX is the year and YYY is the session chapter number. So, for instance, the 1998 changes to the gun laws, which changed parts of chapter 140 of the "General" laws, happened to be enacted by (now this is from memory) chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998. And then (again from memory), these changes were changed again by St. 1998, ch. 357.

The General Laws is not itself an enactment, but rather it is a compilation of those enactments of general and continuing application that the legislature has designated for compilation.

So, for instance, an act declaring that the intersection of X and Y streets in West Nowhere shall hereinafter be known as Charles J. Doofus Square would have been enacted by a session law, but it would not be reflected in the General Laws.

Remember, all these rules are made by lawyers, and if they were straightforward, who would need lawyers to understand it all?
 
This is probably stretching the topic, but we've got some California members here now and it is about youth and government, so I'll post it anyway.

A good fried of mine was a member of the California legislature for a long time, and just write me about a program called the Assembly Fellows program and its counterpart Senate Fellows program. Most of the applicants tend to be liberal and Democrat, which means that Republican or other conservative legislators who want to hire Fellows have very limited choices.

The program provides college graduates (of any major, any age, and career background or fresh graduates) an opportunity to become full-time legislative staff members in Sacramento for 11 months beginning in October 2007. Fellows are assigned to the personal or committee staff of a senator or assemblyman and also participate in academic seminars with senior staff, journalists, lobbyists, and state government officials. These fellowship programs are jointly operated by the California legislature and Center for California Studies at Sacramento State University.

Fellows are paid a stipend of $1,972 per month plus benefits. They earn 12 units of graduate credit from Sacramento State for the academic portion of the program. Former Senate and Assembly Fellows include current members of Congress and the California Legislature, judges, and numerous other elected officials and community leaders.

Anyone who will be at least 20 years of age and a graduate of a four-year college or university by September 1, 2007, is eligible to apply. There is no preferred major. Individuals with advanced degrees and those in mid-career are especially encouraged to apply. Applications and brochures are available for the Assembly Fellows program at www.csus.edu/calst/assembly, and for the Senate Fellows program at www.csus.edu/calst/senate (I suspect it's a common application for both programs.)

If you or a frieand or family member are just out of college, or looking for a hiatus or possible change from your current career, and have a strong interest in the way government works (and should work), you might consider applying.

Ken
 
Lkwinnie,

RKG is an attorney.

There is a booklet sold at the State House Bookstore that lays out exactly how proposed legislation must be written. It cost something like $2 or less.
 
The best preamble I could think of is:

"AN ACT TO ENSURE AND PROTECT THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS FOR SPORTING AND SECURITY"

If anyone has anything better, I can still change it up until midnight!!!
 
You also need to amend Chapter 269 section 10 which is where the prohibition of firearms resides. If you get rid of the sections in Chapter 140 only, you simply leave the ban in place without any means to overcome it.

"In an effort to provide the security of the citizens and remove restrictive blue laws that prevent all citizens from exercising their rights as free persons, Chapter 269 section 10 is hereby stricken of paragraphs a through e and paragraphs g through m."
 
Well guys, I just got back from the conference!

Well guys, I just got back from the conference. It was amazing.

Keeping this gun related, my bill, "An act ensuring the people's right to keep and bear arms", did pretty well considering the state we live in.

The bill basically repealed the whole LTC/FID licensing crap, and replaced it with anyone over 18 (and not prohibited under the GCA 68) may purchase, and possess any gun, and CCW with any handgun.

I passed it through committee 6-1. [smile] It went on to the Senate. There it didn't do so well. We did a voice vote and the President failed it. After calling division, the vote turned out to be 18-17 in my favor. [smile] [smile]

Because of time, it didn't go to the House, just to the governor, who vetoed it--but signed the bill legalizing polygamy--, citing Rousseau, who said that the citizens must rely on the government (or something to that tune).

Veto override session. It was tremendously difficult to say everything in only a minute (which is all the SotH gave). I ended up quoting both Locke and Thomas Jefferson, among other things. After my statement, some anti (stupid freshman[rolleyes] ) came up and read off several bogus (incorrect, embellished) statistics and facts (US v. Miller was one of them).

Eventually, we voted and I lost something like 51-41. Not even close considering I needed a supermajority.

Even though it failed, I had a LOT of fun. I got to walk around the entire state house (I saw Deval's 10,000 tax-dollar drapes. Glorious.[rolleyes] )

In the Senate chamber, they had the first captured rifle of the Revolutionary War on display, along with another man's (whose name escapes me) rifle from the same war. Very cool.

Don't forget that polygamy is now legal in the Commonwealth. [rofl] [rolleyes] [laugh]
_____

I had some questions from someone who would know more about the workings of congressman.

I had a ton of statistics I wanted to present. However, I didn't have enough time to say it all, so I made Section 1 of my bill 'findings', with a big list of all the stats and facts. About three pages long. The clerk was PISSED! [laugh]

For the public debate, I had some of my friends speak in favor, and others try to take up the negative slots with somewhat bogus or half-ass statements.

What I would like to do next year is email my bill to the NRA and GOAL asking for a statement, and have some delegates read them, speaking on their behalf. I think that would be VERY strong.

Anyway I was wondering if there are any other ways that congressman try to take advantage of the system in order to get more votes? I know it sounds somewhat unethical, but politics is politics right?[wink]



Thanks
 
Last edited:
Lkwinnipesaukee said:
Anyway I was wondering if there are any other ways that congressman try to take advantage of the system in order to get more votes? I know it sounds somewhat unethical, but politics is politics right?[wink]



Thanks
Click to expand...

THE TYPICAL YOU VOTE YES ON MY PROPOSAL I'LL WORK TO SWING VOTES YOUR WAY ON YOUR PROPOSAL IS ALWAYS A NICE TRY...
 
Back
Top Bottom