[ON HOLD] Firearm Trafficking Accord

[Losthaven]

Firearm Trafficking Accord
Category: Gun Control ~*~ Strength: Tighten

The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

Affirming that the majority of firearms are owned and used by responsible individuals who possess them for legitimate purposes, such as family defense, hunting, hobby, and sport; but

Conscious that in addition to legitimate lawful purposes, firearms are regularly used by criminals seeking to facilitate their crimes by means of violence or threats of violence;

Aware that firearms used in criminal acts cause countless severe injuries and deaths every year, and that the use of a firearm during the commission of a crime often leads to a substantially greater tragedy than if the firearm had not been used;

Recognizing that nearly all firearms used in crime were once manufactured lawfully, sold lawfully, or purchased lawfully, but at some point fell into the wrong hands;

Further recognizing that firearms manufactured, purchased, and sold lawfully in one member nation can be naferiously smuggled to another member nation for use in a criminal enterprise;

Noting that firearms acquired lawfully in areas with little or no regulation are easily transported to areas where they are not permitted, especially in the case of small arms and handguns;

Convinced that the high costs of firearm violence and the ability of criminals to move firearms internationally for the purpose of committing crime compels the World Assembly to take action.

Now, therefore, the General Assembly hereby:

1. Requires that any firearm legally manufactured within a member nation shall be marked with the following identifiers:

1. the name or unique logo of the manufacturer,
2. the weapon model number, and
3. a serial number unique to the manufacturer.

2. Further requires that any firearm sold within a member nation shall have its identifiers recorded on an official record maintained by the seller and the seller shall record, at a minimum, the date the firearm entered the sellers inventory and the date the firearm was sold.

3. Prohibits the sale of a firearm to any person who:

1. has ties to any international terrorist or criminal organization,
2. has been convicted of a crime involving the use or threatened use of a firearm,
3. has been found guilty of any violent crime including, but not limited to, murder, manslaughter, assault, robbery, burglary, or rape, and
4. has been convicted of smuggling or any other crime involving illicitly transporting goods from one nation to another.

4. Directs that any seller selling a firearm within a member nation must take steps to determine, with reasonable certainty, whether the buyer is prohibited from purchasing a firearm by national or international law.

5. Mandates that any person who lawfully purchases a firearm within a member nation must immediately report the loss or theft of that firearm to law enforcement.

6. Establishes the International Firearms Trafficking Bureau (IFTB) and assigns it the following duties:

1. to compile the information reported and recorded under the provisions of this Act into a master IFTB database
2. to maintain in the IFTB database a registry of terrorist and criminal individuals and enterprises known or suspected to be involved in firearm crime or trafficking
3. to allow any legitimate firearm manufacturer, firearm seller, firearm buyer, or law enforcement agency reasonable access to the IFTB database, and to provide reasonable assistance and logistical support to those accessing the database

7. Declares that nothing in this Act shall be interpreted to require the legalization of firearm ownership in a member nation, or the prohibition of firearm ownership except as specifically mentioned in clause 3.

[Losthaven]

The Losthavenian Delegation would add that we strongly considered including language regarding mutual border security and anti-smuggling cooperation but we wanted to see how the principle draft was viewed before adding in those provisions. So we would welcome comments on that idea as well.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Lets not and say we didn't mmkay?

[Separatist Peoples]

"This is not an international issue. No."

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Would you be willing to wait and see what happens with this before going ahead? If the category is to be removed, there seems little point preparing a draft for it.

[Losthaven]

Lets not and say we didn't mmkay?

Your attitude of flippantly ignoring a serious issue is not particularly flattering or useful.

"This is not an international issue. No."

We addressed why this is an international issue in the preamble. What part of that argument is unsatisfying? Gun trafficking - which can and does occur across international boundaries - is as much an international issue as any.

OOC: Would you be willing to wait and see what happens with this before going ahead? If the category is to be removed, there seems little point preparing a draft for it.

OOC - Isn't the exact opposite also true: if the category is going to be removed from the game, then now is the last and only time bringing this issue up would be appropriate. But I'm willing to consider this in another category if there's a good argument for that; perhaps international security?

[Separatist Peoples]

We addressed why this is an international issue in the preamble. What part of that argument is unsatisfying? Gun trafficking - which can and does occur across international boundaries - is as much an international issue as any.

"Your proposal makes no attempt to regulate cross-border gun trafficking. All it does is put an unnecessary burden on domestic gun ownership, and anything that attempts to do so will receive every iota of resistance this delegation and it's numerous stamps can muster."

Further recognizing that firearms manufactured, purchased, and sold lawfully in one member nation can be naferiously smuggled to another member nation for use in a criminal enterprise;

"Not our problem if you can't keep your criminals under control."

Noting that firearms acquired lawfully in areas will little or no regulation are easily transported to areas where they are not permitted, especially in the case of small arms and handguns;

"Only if your border security is crap."

Now, therefore, the General Assembly hereby:

1. Requires that any firearm legally manufactured within a member nation shall be marked with the following identifiers:

1. the name or unique logo of the manufacturer,
2. the weapon model number, and
3. a serial number unique to the manufacturer.

"Micromanagement of domestic firearms production is neither desired nor needed."

2. Further requires that any firearm sold within a member nation shall have its identifiers recorded on an official record maintained by the seller and the seller shall record, at a minimum, the date the firearm entered the sellers inventory and the date the firearm was sold.

"Thus wasting the taxpayer's money violating our citizen's right to privacy for private transfers."

3. Prohibits the sale of a firearm to any person who:

1. has ties to any international terrorist or criminal organization,
2. has been convicted of a crime involving the use or threatened use of a firearm,
3. has been found guilty of any violent crime including, but not limited to, murder, manslaughter, assault, robbery, burglary, or rape, and
4. has been convicted of smuggling or any other crime involving illicitly transporting goods from one nation to another.

"All except the concerns of terrorist organization connections are domestic concerns. If we sell firearms to murderers and rapists, that doesn't change anything in your nation."

4. Directs that any seller selling a firearm within a member nation must take steps to determine, with reasonable certainty, whether the buyer is prohibited from purchasing a firearm by national or international law.

"As noted before, I, personally, and a majority of nations, generally, will fight tooth and nail before we allow the World Assembly determine who has the right to own private property or not."

5. Mandates that any person who lawfully purchases a firearm within a member nation must immediately report the loss or theft of that firearm to law enforcement.

"And now you're attempting to meddle in the lives of our citizens directly. Unacceptable."

6. Establishes the International Firearms Trafficking Bureau (IFTB) and assigns it the following duties:

to compile the information reported and recorded under the provisions of this Act into a master IFTB database
1. to maintain in the IFTB database a registry of terrorist and criminal individuals and enterprises known or suspected to be involved in firearm crime or trafficking
2. to allow any legitimate firearm manufacturer, firearm seller, firearm buyer, or law enforcement agency reasonable access to the IFTB database, and to provide reasonable assistance and logistical support to those accessing the database

"The C.D.S.P. has no intention of issuing private information on our citizens to the WA. No."

7. Declares that nothing in this Act shall be interpreted to require the legalization of firearm ownership in a member nation, or the prohibition of firearm ownership except as specifically mentioned in clause 3.

"On the whole, this is an attempt to micromanage domestic firearms policy, and makes absolutely no attempt to restrict or otherwise reduce cross-boundary firearms smuggling. If your nation cannot keep firearms out of it's borders, you need better border security. Your failures to prevent smuggling do not constitute an issue on our part. Stop wasting our time."

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Would you be willing to wait and see what happens with this before going ahead? If the category is to be removed, there seems little point preparing a draft for it.

OOC - Isn't the exact opposite also true: if the category is going to be removed from the game, then now is the last and only time bringing this issue up would be appropriate.

OOC: It's easily possibly to write this within International Security, especially if you concentrate on the genuinely international aspects. That's what previous resolutions on international arms transfers have used, too.

[Losthaven]

"Your proposal makes no attempt to regulate cross-border gun trafficking. All it does is put an unnecessary burden on domestic gun ownership, and anything that attempts to do so will receive every iota of resistance this delegation and it's numerous stamps can muster."

This proposal attempts to deal with international trafficking at the point where illegal arms enter the stream of commerce. The purpose of this proposal is to make the tracking of the source of international gun smuggling possible. Moreover, I doubt your concern over the lack of anti-smuggling provisions is genuine, seeing as you go on to say that gun smuggling is:

"Not our problem if you can't keep your criminals under control."

We'd be happy to take this issue to the voters. We believe that gun violence is everyone's problem and nations without regulations are being unkind and disingenuous when they shrug their shoulders and argue that their lack of enforcement isn't contributing to gun violence in other countries.

"Only if your border security is crap."

Again, we see this as veiled victim blaming. "So sorry guns manufactured, sold, and exported from our country wound up killing your civilians. But really, it's your fault criminals from our country managed to sneak guns across your border."

"Micromanagement of domestic firearms production is neither desired nor needed."

We don't see how basic firearm identification requirements (especially things gun manufacturers really ought to be doing on their own anyway) amounts to micromanagement. This provision requires gun manufacturers to label their product with make, model, and serial number. Hardly an intrusive requirement.

"Thus wasting the taxpayer's money violating our citizen's right to privacy for private transfers."

The proposal does not require that the parties be named, just that a record be kept of when the gun was with the seller and when the gun was sold. It's to protect the seller more than anything, and to help law enforcement pinpoint whether firearms sold by certain sellers are turing up in crime scenes at an unusual rate. If you've got specific concerns about individual privacy, I'd certainly entertain them.

We're not sure how that provision wastes taxpayer money. At all.

"All except the concerns of terrorist organization connections are domestic concerns. If we sell firearms to murderers and rapists, that doesn't change anything in your nation."

We're happy there's something in this proposal Your Grace can agree is an international issue. But if you're argument is "none of your business if we're selling guns to violent criminals, that's OUR problem not yours" then we'd just as soon take that issue to the voters. We believe it is unlikely that a majority of nations would oppose this on the grounds that it unduly limits the right of murderers and rapists to possess firearms, and we also believe that most people will understand that the danger created when violent criminals are allowed to purchase firearms is not magically limited to the nation of origin. Believe it or not, violent criminals have been known to travel internationally.

"As noted before, I, personally, and a majority of nations, generally, will fight tooth and nail before we allow the World Assembly determine who has the right to own private property or not."

We can appreciate that this is what it comes down to for you. We are happy to work with you, but we will more willingly accept fierce opposition than to concede the status quo on this issue. We do not think the limits on firearm ownership we propose are going to be viewed as so incredibly offensive to the majority of reasonable nations. Suffice to say, we believe we have the moral high ground when we say that member nations should not be allowing dangerous criminals to buy guns that can go on to be used in criminal enterprises.

"And now you're attempting to meddle in the lives of our citizens directly. Unacceptable."

You think it's unacceptable to require people to report when their gun is stolen? Why?

"On the whole, this is an attempt to micromanage domestic firearms policy, and makes absolutely no attempt to restrict or otherwise reduce cross-boundary firearms smuggling. If your nation cannot keep firearms out of it's borders, you need better border security. Your failures to prevent smuggling do not constitute an issue on our part. Stop wasting our time."

We do not find this argument persuasive in the least. It's classic victim blaming to say that gun violence in our country is not the fault of permissive nations putting guns into the market and making it easy for criminals to obtain them. We understand that there will be a strong pro-gun resistance to this type of legislation but you've said nothing that makes us believe we're actually overreaching here. If your response to any gun legislation is "no" then you're not leaving much room to compromise.

[Jarish Inyo]

This is not an international issue. My nations gun laws are not a concern of other nations. We will not turn over records of our citizens to the WA. Or our citizens property records.

[Separatist Peoples]

This proposal attempts to deal with international trafficking at the point where illegal arms enter the stream of commerce. The purpose of this proposal is to make the tracking of the source of international gun smuggling possible.

"A point of entry that is not, inherently illegal. Your attempts at legislation disproportionately affect the legal purchasers and unnecessarily burden otherwise functional systems."

Moreover, I doubt your concern over the lack of anti-smuggling provisions is genuine, seeing as you go on to say that gun smuggling is:

"Not our problem if you can't keep your criminals under control."

We'd be happy to take this issue to the voters. We believe that gun violence is everyone's problem and nations without regulations are being unkind and disingenuous when they shrug their shoulders and argue that their lack of enforcement isn't contributing to gun violence in other countries.

"Gun violence outside of our borders isn't our problem, ambassador. Neither is gun violence within our borders yours concern. The simple fact is that firearms legally purchased and manufactured within the C.D.S.P. wouldn't find their way into, for example, Losthaven if Losthaven border control made an attempt at controlling what comes into their borders. That is hardly victim-blaming, as I'm not blaming victims. I'm blaming your border control's incompetence."

Again, we see this as veiled victim blaming. "So sorry guns manufactured, sold, and exported from our country wound up killing your civilians. But really, it's your fault criminals from our country managed to sneak guns across your border."

"See my last comment."

We don't see how basic firearm identification requirements (especially things gun manufacturers really ought to be doing on their own anyway) amounts to micromanagement. This provision requires gun manufacturers to label their product with make, model, and serial number. Hardly an intrusive requirement.

"Except you go ahead and require nations to keep record of this information, which is inherently intrusive."

The proposal does not require that the parties be named, just that a record be kept of when the gun was with the seller and when the gun was sold. It's to protect the seller more than anything, and to help law enforcement pinpoint whether firearms sold by certain sellers are turing up in crime scenes at an unusual rate. If you've got specific concerns about individual privacy, I'd certainly entertain them.
We're not sure how that provision wastes taxpayer money. At all.

"Really. You can't see how setting up and maintaining such a system will cost money? We don't penalize firearms vendors for the use of their merchandise in crimes. Keeping such a record would be pointless, intrusive, and expensive."

We're happy there's something in this proposal Your Grace can agree is an international issue. But if you're argument is "none of your business if we're selling guns to violent criminals, that's OUR problem not yours" then we'd just as soon take that issue to the voters. We believe it is unlikely that a majority of nations would oppose this on the grounds that it unduly limits the right of murderers and rapists to possess firearms, and we also believe that most people will understand that the danger created when violent criminals are allowed to purchase firearms is not magically limited to the nation of origin. Believe it or not, violent criminals have been known to travel internationally.

"You assume that anybody will let this dreck get to vote. I'm probably one of the more reasonable voices on this topic. NOBODY wants the WA to involve itself in domestic firearms law.

"If you allow convicted criminals to obtain visas in your nation, then the fault is yours. Once they leave our jurisdiction, their behavior is somebody else's problem...However, the C.D.S.P. believes that, regardless of the crime, paying one's debt to society through rehabilitation and incarceration leaves one with a clean record. We do not deny people the right to own property based on past, paid debts. This is a heavy-handed way of discriminating against a segment of our population that we couldn't possibly accept."

We can appreciate that this is what it comes down to for you. We are happy to work with you, but we will more willingly accept fierce opposition than to concede the status quo on this issue. We do not think the limits on firearm ownership we propose are going to be viewed as so incredibly offensive to the majority of reasonable nations. Suffice to say, we believe we have the moral high ground when we say that member nations should not be allowing dangerous criminals to buy guns that can go on to be used in criminal enterprises.

"Expect disappointment. The WA has historically shot down every single attempt to regulate firearms, whether it was banning them or legalizing them. The voters simply Do Not Want legislation on the matter."

You think it's unacceptable to require people to report when their gun is stolen? Why?

"Because it is their property. If they wish to not report it, than that is their concern."

We do not find this argument persuasive in the least. It's classic victim blaming to say that gun violence in our country is not the fault of permissive nations putting guns into the market and making it easy for criminals to obtain them. We understand that there will be a strong pro-gun resistance to this type of legislation but you've said nothing that makes us believe we're actually overreaching here. If your response to any gun legislation is "no" then you're not leaving much room to compromise.

"Compromise on this topic is unacceptable. We won't have you or anybody else banning the ownership of private property based on a whim, especially when the WA has made absolutely no laws respecting the legality of murder, assault, private property ownership, or affiliation with organized crime."

[Losthaven]

"A point of entry that is not, inherently illegal. Your attempts at legislation disproportionately affect the legal purchasers and unnecessarily burden otherwise functional systems."

This is simply not true. It's just the canned answer to any gun legislation spewed by the pro-gun lobby. The proposal seeks to (1) require guns to be identifiable, (2) requires sellers to keep track of their inventory, (3) prohibits sale to terrorists and violent criminals, (4) requires good folks to report a lost or stolen gun to their local constable and (5) creates an international database designed to assist law enforcement officers. How does that disproportionately affect legal gun purchasers?

"Gun violence outside of our borders isn't our problem, ambassador. Neither is gun violence within our borders yours concern. The simple fact is that firearms legally purchased and manufactured within the C.D.S.P. wouldn't find their way into, for example, Losthaven if Losthaven border control made an attempt at controlling what comes into their borders. That is hardly victim-blaming, as I'm not blaming victims. I'm blaming your border control's incompetence."

This is a sad view of our responsibility to other members of our global community. Gun violence anywhere should be seen as a problem to people everywhere. We are really shocked to have to say that out loud. We assume it is a given.

Border security is not some magical wall. If it were, perhaps you'd have a point. But it's documented that it is easer and more effective to stop the flow of weapons from the source than it is to expect law enforcement to find them once they've entered the black market or found their way into a criminal's hands. That's the premise of this proposal.

"Except you go ahead and require nations to keep record of this information, which is inherently intrusive."

When "this information" is just a firearm's make, model and serial number, without reference to who it's been sold to, we don't see that as intrusive of anyone's rights. The purpose of that requirement is to aid law enforcement in figuring out which manufacturer's weapons are being latter connected with crime so that law enforcement can begin to figure out how criminals are getting the weapons in the first place and target their reposes. It's a pretty simple idea that's been touted for a while as the first step in stemming gun violence. Frankly, the only reason we can think of for someone to oppose this is if they know that manufacturers from their nation are supplying criminals with guns and they are afraid of that information coming out.

"Really. You can't see how setting up and maintaining such a system will cost money? We don't penalize firearms vendors for the use of their merchandise in crimes. Keeping such a record would be pointless, intrusive, and expensive."

We don't see how it will cost "taxpayer" money, which is what was originally alleged. It may cost money, but we didn't require public funds. We consider this to be a red herring because we believe most reputable gun dealers are already keeping track of their inventory in this way and all this provision does is codify best practices anyway. We also doubt keeping a ledger of business transactions would be all that costly to a business.

"You assume that anybody will let this dreck get to vote. I'm probably one of the more reasonable voices on this topic. NOBODY wants the WA to involve itself in domestic firearms law.

If yours is one of the more reasonable voices on this topic then we may indeed have a great problem getting this to vote. But we've never shied away from a challenge and we can run a campaign with the best of them. I'm sure there are enough rational-minded delegates to at least have something along these lines this heard. Reproductive Freedoms passed, after all, and I hardly see this issue as more contentious than that.

"If you allow convicted criminals to obtain visas in your nation, then the fault is yours. Once they leave our jurisdiction, their behavior is somebody else's problem...However, the C.D.S.P. believes that, regardless of the crime, paying one's debt to society through rehabilitation and incarceration leaves one with a clean record. We do not deny people the right to own property based on past, paid debts. This is a heavy-handed way of discriminating against a segment of our population that we couldn't possibly accept."

There seems to be a little cognitive dissonance here, in that you say allowing "convicted criminals" to obtain visas is a "fault" on our end while at the same time a person who has served their sentence is regarded as fully rehabilitated and entitled to a restoration of rights. Which is it?

But such observations aside, border enforcement is just one side of this particular issue, one which I agree needs some treatment in the next draft. But pointing to border enforcement as the sole issue is like saying you don't have to floss so long as you brush: there needs to be both source accountability and border enforcement to combat the problem. You're suggesting we do 100% of the later and just pretend like the former is a non-issue.

You think it's unacceptable to require people to report when their gun is stolen? Why?

"Because it is their property. If they wish to not report it, than that is their concern."

Well, agree to disagree then. It seems terribly irresponsible to advocate that a person need not report a stolen gun - you know, a weapon designed to kill is not like other things you might lose and decide not to report stolen. Until we hear a better reason than "people shouldn't have to report their gun is gone if they don't wanna" I don't think we could justify taking that out of the draft.

"Compromise on this topic is unacceptable. We won't have you or anybody else banning the ownership of private property based on a whim, especially when the WA has made absolutely no laws respecting the legality of murder, assault, private property ownership, or affiliation with organized crime."

How is this on a whim? It's based on prior affiliation with terrorists or convictions for heinous crimes. You'd take away someone's liberty for shooting their wife, but damned if that person can't go out and buy a gun once they get out? That position does not make sense.

[Jarish Inyo]

how i requiring markings really going to help? Anyone selling illegal guns are going to remove those makings, making them nearly impossible to trace.

Setting up a database of weapons sold and to who is going to cost the tax payers. How did you assume that such a database was to be established and maintain on a local or national level? You're assumption that dealers keep the name of the purchaser in their ledger is a falsify.

[Separatist Peoples]

This is simply not true. It's just the canned answer to any gun legislation spewed by the pro-gun lobby. The proposal seeks to (1) require guns to be identifiable, (2) requires sellers to keep track of their inventory, (3) prohibits sale to terrorists and violent criminals, (4) requires good folks to report a lost or stolen gun to their local constable and (5) creates an international database designed to assist law enforcement officers. How does that disproportionately affect legal gun purchasers?

"Because legal gun owners will have to have their property registered unnecessarily, bans sales to those who have served their sentence, regardless of national laws determining them to be competent to own firearms, and report a private happenstance to an ultimately international entity. Your nation may not be a bastion of personal freedoms, but the C.D.S.P. certainly is."

This is a sad view of our responsibility to other members of our global community. Gun violence anywhere should be seen as a problem to people everywhere. We are really shocked to have to say that out loud. We assume it is a given.

"Funny. We view it as a jurisdictional issue. We have no jurisdiction, either physically or in terms of applicability, such as violations of human rights. If your nation has a criminal shooting three times a day, its your problem. It only becomes our issue when you enter our territory. That we respect your national sovereignty in such issues is hardly a sad view of responsibility. If you wanted to prevent the cross-border sale or smuggling, require end-user certificates to be honored in good faith on all shipments of arms. Leave private, intrastate gun sales alone."

Border security is not some magical wall. If it were, perhaps you'd have a point. But it's documented that it is easer and more effective to stop the flow of weapons from the source than it is to expect law enforcement to find them once they've entered the black market or found their way into a criminal's hands. That's the premise of this proposal.

"Stopping the flow at their source also inhibits the lawful acquisition of them by civilians. That is unfair to those who would become lawful owners. I already pointed out the most effective way to prevent firearms crime proliferation."

When "this information" is just a firearm's make, model and serial number, without reference to who it's been sold to, we don't see that as intrusive of anyone's rights. The purpose of that requirement is to aid law enforcement in figuring out which manufacturer's weapons are being latter connected with crime so that law enforcement can begin to figure out how criminals are getting the weapons in the first place and target their reposes. It's a pretty simple idea that's been touted for a while as the first step in stemming gun violence. Frankly, the only reason we can think of for someone to oppose this is if they know that manufacturers from their nation are supplying criminals with guns and they are afraid of that information coming out.

"Information that could easily be used to track the owner themselves. Which is an unacceptable intrusion of privacy. There are several reasons to oppose this, notably that its a bad idea and they don't want to see their nation subject to such over-the-top restrictions. Questioning the character of your opponents in the manner you're attempting is beneath you, ambassador. I really would expect much better from a national delegation then that."

We don't see how it will cost "taxpayer" money, which is what was originally alleged. It may cost money, but we didn't require public funds. We consider this to be a red herring because we believe most reputable gun dealers are already keeping track of their inventory in this way and all this provision does is codify best practices anyway. We also doubt keeping a ledger of business transactions would be all that costly to a business.

"Instead, we could tax the businesses and manufacturers. Which would still be our taxpayers. Perhaps gun dealers in your nation have to comply with such laws, but not all nations."

If yours is one of the more reasonable voices on this topic then we may indeed have a great problem getting this to vote. But we've never shied away from a challenge and we can run a campaign with the best of them. I'm sure there are enough rational-minded delegates to at least have something along these lines this heard. Reproductive Freedoms passed, after all, and I hardly see this issue as more contentious than that.

"Reproductive Freedoms was an issue of bodily rights. This is not."

There seems to be a little cognitive dissonance here, in that you say allowing "convicted criminals" to obtain visas is a "fault" on our end while at the same time a person who has served their sentence is regarded as fully rehabilitated and entitled to a restoration of rights. Which is it?

"Hardly. You have the right to refuse our citizens with criminal histories. You are welcome to refuse their visas and levy restrictions. We, however, consider prisoners who have undergone rehabilitation and incarceration to be entirely restored to regular citizens. Its a matter of perspective, clearly."

But such observations aside, border enforcement is just one side of this particular issue, one which I agree needs some treatment in the next draft. But pointing to border enforcement as the sole issue is like saying you don't have to floss so long as you brush: there needs to be both source accountability and border enforcement to combat the problem. You're suggesting we do 100% of the later and just pretend like the former is a non-issue.

"Funny, we don't seem to have that issue with our border security."

Well, agree to disagree then. It seems terribly irresponsible to advocate that a person need not report a stolen gun - you know, a weapon designed to kill is not like other things you might lose and decide not to report stolen. Until we hear a better reason than "people shouldn't have to report their gun is gone if they don't wanna" I don't think we could justify taking that out of the draft.

"Guns are not all designed to kill. Plenty are designed for legitimate sporting goods."

How is this on a whim? It's based on prior affiliation with terrorists or convictions for heinous crimes. You'd take away someone's liberty for shooting their wife, but damned if that person can't go out and buy a gun once they get out? That position does not make sense.

"Once they've served their sentence, they're clear on our front. I'm not sure how discriminating against individuals who have served their sentence is some how acceptable, but I respect your nation's right to consider ex-convicts threats.

"I think its time to take Ambassador Trudeau's advice on this front. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of the Gun Control category being attempted."

[Kaboomlandia]

Agreed. When only two resolutions in the category have been passed, and one has been repealed, there really is no point having it.

[Separatist Peoples]

Agreed. When only two resolutions in the category have been passed, and one has been repealed, there really is no point having it.

"Especially when there is absolutely no argument for the domestic gun market being an issue regarding international legislation. Its gross micromanagement..."

[Bears Armed]

This seems mostly reasonable, in our opinion, but parts of clause #3 do seem excessively intrusive on national sovereignty. For exampIe, if we're willing to let somebody who was convicted of assault several octades ago and who has not only already been fully punished for that crime but has since proven themselves an upstanding citizen buy a gun now then I don't see why the WA should be smelled as having any good reason to block that sale.

[The Two Jerseys]

We concur with our colleagues, this proposal does nothing to address international gun trafficking.

[Normlpeople]

Clover spoke after taking a few minutes to compose herself. "Ahh, another idealistic liberal who feels more laws are the answer and that criminals who willing ignore existing laws will duly follow the new ones. Ambassador Bell has torn this apart well enough already, as have others, however I must add my voice in opposition against any gun control proposal."

[Imperium Anglorum]

While the Imperial Home Office is in favour of almost any form of regulation of firearms, as we find them to be in violation of our citizen's rights to safety, the Democratic Empire does not condone or support any endeavour to push for their regulation in foreign nations, and hence, cannot support your proposal. If there exist barbarians who wish to shoot themselves up with automatic weapons, so be it; as long as those bullets don't hit any of our citizens — because if that happens, we'll be sending over a squadron of gunboats.

[Kaboomlandia]

You borrowed my "ON HOLD" idea, I see. I put mine on hold because I'm waiting for a new category to be created for it.
Not ordering you to stop, just commenting on it.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

You borrowed my "ON HOLD" idea, I see. I put mine on hold because I'm waiting for a new category to be created for it.
Not ordering you to stop, just commenting on it.

Yes because no one ever, in the history of Nationstates has tagged their title to be on hold.

[New Finnish Republic]

How would this prevent the smuggling of firearms through illegal organizations, who would not heed this mandate?

[Jarish Inyo]

How would this prevent the smuggling of firearms through illegal organizations, who would not heed this mandate?

It doesn't prevent illegal organizations from removing identifying markings or smuggling firearms. This proposal has nothing do with arms trafflicking in any way. Just pointless regulations for manufactures, dealers, citizens and governments.