[Draft] Convention on Firearms

[Kelinfort]

Convention on Firearms

Category: Gun Control
Decision: (Status Quo, more or less)

COGNISANT that gun control is a controversial topic.

REALISING that WA legislation will only complicate this issue.

The World Assembly,

RECOGNISES a firearm as any weapon that fires projectile from a barrel or barrels using significant propulsion from combustion.

ASSERTS the individual right of WA member states to ban, control, legalise, or otherwise make legislation concerning firearms so long as these do not violate WA resolutions.

ASSERTS the right of WA member states to regulate, ban, or legalise firearm trade so long as these does not violate WA resolutions.

Well, seeing as though we don't have a blocker on this issue, I thought one would be well deserved to deter any attempts to blanket legalise or blanket control through WA resolution. Suggestions and comments are welcome.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I believe this is illegal for purely being a blocker that closes off an entire category. Likewise, I haven't the foggiest what the Secretariat's current position on the Gun Control category is, but I don't believe one can choose anything but Tighten/Loosen. I wish we had some realistic options dealing with this category, like grades of strength, but at the moment, the category is all but impossible to legally block while maintaining the status quo. Terribly sorry, ambassador."

[Kelinfort]

"I believe this is illegal for purely being a blocker that closes off an entire category. Likewise, I haven't the foggiest what the Secretariat's current position on the Gun Control category is, but I don't believe one can choose anything but Tighten/Loosen. I wish we had some realistic options dealing with this category, like grades of strength, but at the moment, the category is all but impossible to legally block while maintaining the status quo. Terribly sorry, ambassador."

"Would the specific choice really matter compared to the actual wording of the resolution or would it have more than face value? Is there anything about this specific resolution that would be illegal in the eyes of the WA?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"I believe this is illegal for purely being a blocker that closes off an entire category. Likewise, I haven't the foggiest what the Secretariat's current position on the Gun Control category is, but I don't believe one can choose anything but Tighten/Loosen. I wish we had some realistic options dealing with this category, like grades of strength, but at the moment, the category is all but impossible to legally block while maintaining the status quo. Terribly sorry, ambassador."

"Would the specific choice really matter compared to the actual wording of the resolution or would it have more than face value? Is there anything about this specific resolution that would be illegal in the eyes of the WA?"

"This simply leaves decisions to member states, which would be a blocker. It has to have a mandate somewhere to avoid that. Whether you Tighten or Loosen would ultimately depend on your mandated clause. Did that make sense? It's a very odd category."

[Kelinfort]

"Would the specific choice really matter compared to the actual wording of the resolution or would it have more than face value? Is there anything about this specific resolution that would be illegal in the eyes of the WA?"

"This simply leaves decisions to member states, which would be a blocker. It has to have a mandate somewhere to avoid that. Whether you Tighten or Loosen would ultimately depend on your mandated clause. Did that make sense? It's a very odd category."

"I suppose you're right. I think I'll consult the General Secretariat for more information."

[Frisbeeteria]

Decision: (Status Quo, more or less)

No such animal.