[NEW DRAFT] International Firearms Accord

[Christian Democrats]

GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL
International Firearms Accord
A resolution to tighten or relax gun control laws.

Category: Gun Control | Decision: Relax | Proposed by: Christian Democrats

The General Assembly,

Aware that numerous member states recognize a right of self-defense and that many consider this an inalienable right,

Believing it is natural for people to seek means by which to protect themselves from potential harm,

Asserting that individuals, especially the weak, should be able to protect themselves, others, and their properties against unjust aggressors,

Recognizing that the possession of firearms may deter crime and discourage despotic government, and

Defining civilian, for the purposes of this resolution, as an inhabitant of a member state who is law-abiding and competent, hereby

Allows civilians to keep, bear, and use firearms for their safety and legitimate defense,

Permits private ownership of firearms by civilians for such reasons,

Legalizes the trade of firearms, intended for use by civilians for such purposes described, subject to any general regulations of commerce that may be established by individual member states or any resolutions that may be enacted by this Assembly, and

Affirms that this resolution does not affect hunting laws or laws regarding weapons used for hunting.

[Vitaphone Racing]

This is a legislation best enforced in your nation, it has no place in the General Assembly.

[Darenjo]

First of all, would this even count as "Relax"? Because it doesn't relax any international gun laws.

Second, I'd give up on trying to get a "let's allow everyone to have guns" proposal through the WA; it's just as unrealistic as trying to force a "nobody but police and militaries can have guns" proposal through.

Third, I really don't see what this does that isn't already what is happening (although I'm not sure if changing the situation is a requirement for legality).

[Charlotte Ryberg]

What about member countries that outlaw gun ownership for a good reason? Opposed!

[Grays Harbor]

Affirms that this resolution does not disallow member states from prohibiting civilians from possessing or using weapons that are not being kept or used for purposes of safety and legitimate defense.

There are more than likely many more guns owned for hunting and sport shooting than for "dafety and defense". I guess it is ok to ban hunting rifles and target pistols, huh?

Opposed

[Christian Democrats]

Affirms that this resolution does not disallow member states from prohibiting civilians from possessing or using weapons that are not being kept or used for purposes of safety and legitimate defense.

There are more than likely many more guns owned for hunting and sport shooting than for "dafety and defense". I guess it is ok to ban hunting rifles and target pistols, huh?

Opposed

This proposal does not address guns with respect to hunting nor would it prevent future legislation with regard to hunting. (To my knowledge, there currently isn't any international legislation on the issue of hunting.)

[Wamitoria]

The entire Pact of Steel is opposed to this measure, and I, as their delegate, will not support it.

[Tosmaldevo]

The Tosvanne Mission, after considerable deliberation, announces it opposition to the proposal, International Firearms Accord. Central to many nations, including the Tosvanne Nation, is a considerable value attached to weaponry, and in recognition of the cultural effects of weaponry, the Tosvanne State supports the legalisation of 'small arms'. Nonetheless, it opposes World Assembly attempts at regulating weaponry legislation in its member-states as such regulation cannot take into account the effects of weaponry on the culture of the nations that are affected by aforementioned regulation.

~ The Tosvanne Mission to the World Assembly

[Mount Shavano]

What about member countries that outlaw gun ownership for a good reason? Opposed!

(emphasis mine)

Oxymoron.

Anyway, the Front Range hopes to see this proposal pass - we'd certainly not mind seeing a little sanity from the WA! - but it sure isn't worth compromising our sovereignty by joining to vote for it. Best of luck.

Jack Fletcher, SecState

[Charlotte Ryberg]

What about member countries that outlaw gun ownership for a good reason? Opposed!

(emphasis mine)

Oxymoron.

Anyway, the Front Range hopes to see this proposal pass - we'd certainly not mind seeing a little sanity from the WA! - but it sure isn't worth compromising our sovereignty by joining to vote for it. Best of luck.

Jack Fletcher, SecState

Oxymoron? More like your delegation is conspiring to see this worthless proposal pass. This does nothing more than increasing gun crime in member countries that ban private gun ownership because of such.

[Christian Democrats]

New draft posted.

I believe this proposal gets to the point pretty quickly.

[Darenjo]

First of all, the third clause is absolutely worthless - how many democratically elected governments have been overthrown by arms-wielding civilians?

Second of all, the one operative clause in this is also absolutely worthless - it doesn't change the situation (and, if you haven't noticed, the WA is actually trying to set some limitations on gun usage here), and it opens the floodgates for those attempting to justify allowing everyone to carry firearms to own this debate entirely.

Our police are quite able to keep law and order. We're sorry if yours aren't, but something like this isn't the solution. Opposed.

[Christian Democrats]

First of all, the third clause is absolutely worthless - how many democratically elected governments have been overthrown by arms-wielding civilians?

Second of all, the one operative clause in this is also absolutely worthless - it doesn't change the situation (and, if you haven't noticed, the WA is actually trying to set some limitations on gun usage here), and it opens the floodgates for those attempting to justify allowing everyone to carry firearms to own this debate entirely.

1) Did I say "democratically elected governments"? I thought I said despotic. Not every World Assembly member is a democracy.

2) It prevents complete prohibitions on civilian firearms.

I slightly have revised the proposal for clarification of its intent.

[Hirota]

At first glance, this is entirely toothless.

At second glance, this is a blocker, and nothing else.

[Grays Harbor]

Considers any member state that completely prohibits civilian firearms a violator of this resolution.

This is a non-starter for us. Many nations do indeed ban civilian ownership of firearms, and that is their right as a nation to do so. We don't agree with that stance, but we support their right to take it. The WA mandating civilian ownership is no better than the WA mandating firearms be banned. Both extremes are an unnecessary intrusion.

[Darenjo]

The 4th clause puts us in absolute opposition to this. We do ban civilian ownership of firearms - unlike you, with your dream of a perfect society where everyone can be trusted to have a gun, we are not stomping around demanding tha tue rest of the WA conform to our views.

[Christian Democrats]

[W]e are not stomping around demanding tha tue [that the?] rest of the WA conform to our views.

That's exactly what your proposal would do. The General Assembly should not ban¹ firearms for anyone; hence, I've drafted a proposal that would protect people's right to keeps and bear arms subject to reasonable restrictions that nations and the General Assembly still would be allowed to impose.

1. Note the use of the word "ban." I'm okay with restrictions.

[Darenjo]

[W]e are not stomping around demanding tha tue [that the?] rest of the WA conform to our views.

That's exactly what your proposal would do. The General Assembly should not ban¹ firearms for anyone; hence, I've drafted a proposal that would protect people's right to keeps and bear arms subject to reasonable restrictions that nations and the General Assembly still would be allowed to impose.

1. Note the use of the word "ban." I'm okay with restrictions.

OOC: Sorry about that little wording mess-up.

IC: My proposal deals with international travel - NOT internal gun rights policies, as yours does.

[Christian Democrats]

That's exactly what your proposal would do. The General Assembly should not ban¹ firearms for anyone; hence, I've drafted a proposal that would protect people's right to keeps and bear arms subject to reasonable restrictions that nations and the General Assembly still would be allowed to impose.

1. Note the use of the word "ban." I'm okay with restrictions.

OOC: Sorry about that little wording mess-up.

IC: My proposal deals with international travel - NOT internal gun rights policies, as yours does.

Regarding travel with firearms, what about nations that have other agreements (e.g., open borders) and/or similar gun laws?

[Darenjo]

OOC: Sorry about that little wording mess-up.

IC: My proposal deals with international travel - NOT internal gun rights policies, as yours does.

Regarding travel with firearms, what about nations that have other agreements (e.g., open borders) and/or similar gun laws?

Do you have any examples of such situations? I'm not denying that they exist, but, for this, I find it justifiable to override the different and many sets of rules of a minority in order to set a universal set of rules for the agreeing majority (assuming of course, my proposal passes).

[Vocatus]

Opposed. While Vocatus, surprisingly enough, actually requires its citizens to keep and practice the use of a personal weapon, we certainly support the efforts of those nations who feel confident with handling their citizens' security. A rigorously enforced ban on civilian firearms could certainly improve lives in many nations.

We are particularly appalled at the tacit endorsement of the use of personal weaponry against the government or agents thereof.

[Morlago]

Recognizing that individuals, especially the weak, should be able to protect themselves, others, and their properties against unjust aggressors

There are other ways to defend yourself that are much less lethal than guns...

Believing the possession of firearms may deter crime and discourage despotic government, hereby

OOC: Simple math equation: Gun + people = murder = crime. Plus, not many nations with despotic governments would join the WA where they will be constricted by these resolutions.

Declares that civilians who are law-abiding citizens and competent have a right to keep, bear, and use firearms for their safety and legitimate defense subject to any regulations that may be established by individual member states or this Assembly and

How do you judge how competent someone is to have the right to bear firearms? By mental health, by income, by criminal record...? Also, it is near impossible to have 100% law-abiding citizens. People buy pirated CDs all the time, or jaywalk.

Considers any member state that completely prohibits civilian firearms a violator of this resolution.[/box]

Redundant. If this resolution allows some people to have firearms, then all nations that completely ban firearm must be violating it.

[Minecraft WB]

So what your telling me is anyone who was law abiding may know go out and threaten people with their firearm!!! This would increase crime and spark revolutionary attitudes against government. Do you want an overthrow of the World Assembly?!?!?!

[Akbarastan]

I have a few points and insights on this proposal.

First of all, the proposal as written has absolutely no teeth to it (i.e. there are no enforcable regulations). Consider the following passage:

Declares that civilians who are law-abiding citizens and competent have a right to keep, bear, and use firearms for their safety and legitimate defense subject to any regulations that may be established by individual member states or this Assembly

This gives the individual governments complete control over who is considered "competent" to own firearms. Any nation could declare all civilians "incompetent" to own personal firearms, thus the entire point of the resolution is negated.

Secondly, I have a problem with the first paragraph:

Recognizing that individuals, especially the weak, should be able to protect themselves, others, and their properties against unjust aggressors

This paragraph is directly encouraging vigilantism and terrorism. Defending citizens and their properties from unjust aggressors is the exact definition of a police force if one reads "unjust aggressors" as criminals. This paragraphy is expressly condones ordinary citizens defending their neighbors (with force) from criminals, without clarification. That means it condones everything from neighborhood watches and vigilianties to death squads.

This paragraph becomes more disturbing when combined with the next one condoning the civilian use of force against a perceived "despotic" government. If "unjust agressors" is read as a foreign military, the legitimate government, or even another ethnic group (which it can be as the term is not at all defined or clarified, thus at the interpretation of the reader) this resolution would condone ethnic cleansing, genocide, terrorism, insurgency, armed revolution, coup d'etats, and irregular military forces.

For these reasons, we oppose this resolution as strongly as we can.

[Ardchoille]

As it stands, it's pure blocker. Blockers aren't illegal as such, but all proposals have to give nations something to do. "Declaring" by itself isn't enough; that's just the WA giving opinion. "Urges (WA member nations) to (do something)" -- however mild the something -- would normally get a blocker through the modly sieve.

But there's a catch: the Gun Control category is one of the ones without a choice of strength (an either/or one). These are automatically considered Strong.

So anything that's outside the blocker function must also be strong. No getting away with "urges". It has to be something with no choice implied, such as "mandates".

Secondly, the content of a Strong proposal has to push nations towards the extremes (no "reasonable nations" here!).

With guns, the extreme of "Tighten" would be "Ban Civilian Guns!" and the extreme of "Relax" would be "Arm Babies Now!"

Doing something definite, like "arm/disarm @@specified section@@ of all nations' populations", could be seen as taking the WA a step towards either extreme, and so could be legal, provided that the action is sufficiently international and sufficiently strong. But you also have to avoid discrimination under CoCR, so you'll run into trouble trying to take/give guns from/to, say, gays, or women, or those who haven't completed secondary education. And Age of Majority is a headache waiting to happen. (Occupations might be one group where you could fit wedge legislation to arm/disarm.)

Remember also what the category description says (I added the underlinings):

... "Gun Control" affects the degree of freedom regarding the private possession and use of firearms.

"Tighten" increases government regulation on the private use of firearms while "Relax" reduces these regulations.

This proposal category discusses ONLY the private, personal possession of firearms, and does NOT address the use of guns by agents of the government (the police and military).

So an argument based solely on considerations of "morality" -- civilians should/shouldn't, ought/ought not to have guns, is irrelevant to the scope of the category. What you're arguing about in a gun proposal is what the government is allowed to do, not what it "should" do.