[Discontinued] Right to Bear Arms 2.0

[Alvisiror]

Seeing as the Right to Bear Arms legislation is going to fail Alvisiror wishes to propose an improved version of the bill.

Description: To ensure that all citizens have to right to defend themselves and to own firearms:
Definitions: Firearm - a weapon from which any projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, whether it be made professionally or by the individual.
Professionally made - a firearm that is manufactured by an Arms manufacturing business
Arms manufacturing business - business engaged in the manufacturing of firearms and/or ammunition for purposes of sale or distribution
Individually made or improvised - a firearm manufactured by someone other than an arms manufacturing business and is typically constructed by adapting existing materials.

Mandates:

Background checks and psychiatric evaluations (or equivalent) must be mandatory for all wishing to purchase firearms, whether it be for collection or self defence. This is to prevent mentally unstable individuals, terrorists and other potential criminals from having access to weapons.

That background and psychiatric evaluations done on paramilitary and military personal must be transferable for the purchase of firearms since they already handle them daily.
Members of the military who have returned from an armed conflict must undergo psychiatric evaluations regardless if they wish to purchase firearms.

The weapons that are permitted for personal use should be regulated by each country according to their own laws.

Description: To ensure that all citizens have to right to defend themselves and to own firearms:
Definitions: Firearm - a weapon from which any projectile can be discharged which launches a projectile through chemical energy, magnetic force or fires directed energy and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, whether it be made professionally or by the individual.
Professionally made - a firearm that is manufactured by an Arms manufacturing business
Arms manufacturing business - business engaged in the manufacturing of firearms and/or ammunition for purposes of sale or distribution
Individually made or improvised - a firearm manufactured by someone other than an arms manufacturing business and is typically constructed by adapting existing materials.

Mandates:

Background checks and psychiatric evaluations (or equivalent) must be mandatory for all wishing to purchase firearms, whether it be for collection or self defence. This is to prevent mentally unstable individuals, terrorists and other potential criminals from having access to weapons.

That background and psychiatric evaluations done on paramilitary and military personal must be transferable for the purchase of firearms since they already handle them daily.
Members of the military who have returned from an armed conflict must undergo psychiatric evaluations regardless if they wish to purchase firearms.

The weapons that are permitted for personal use should be regulated by each country according to their own laws.

Due to the recent discovery of a clause in the WA that threatens the sovereignty of our nation we have decided to withdraw from the WA.
The Article in question is:

Section III:
The Role of the World Assembly:
Article 9 § Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

Since we do not believe any nation or group of nations should have the power to force policy on another nation this caused our withdrawal. Although we strongly wish that all nations in the multiverse allow their citizens access to firearms we have come to the conclusion that this would be impossible due to the presence of tyrannical dictatorships that infringe upon the basic human rights of their citizens.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Why does there need to be a version 2.0?

[Alvisiror]

"Amendments are illegal."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

OOC: Why does there need to be a version 2.0?

OOC: Because amendments are illegal and the original version sucks

[Flibbleites]

"Amendments are illegal."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

OOC: Why does there need to be a version 2.0?

OOC: Because amendments are illegal and the original version sucks

The original version is not going to pass without a massive shift in the votes so the fact that amendments are illegal is irrelevant. The question is, why does the WA need to legislate on what is an issue best dealt with on a national level?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Because amendments are illegal and the original version sucks

OOC: It sucks because it exists. Rewriting it won't change that. The WA has twice by overwhelming margin voted against Right to Bear Arms proposals. The lesson shouldn't "let's try again".

[Hackonia]

No reason to bring this up again, it failed badly the first time and the right to own guns is not something the people of Hackonia are concerned with. Our low crime and virtually non-existent murder rate are points of pride and adding guns to the mix can only make things worse. Our citizens may continue to hunt and have target practice with their traditional bows and arrows, they have no need for firearms.

[Alvisiror]

OOC: It sucks because it exists. Rewriting it won't change that. The WA has twice by overwhelming margin voted against Right to Bear Arms proposals. The lesson shouldn't "let's try again".

OOC: I recently rejoined the WA so I didn't know this legislation existed before. The reason I voted against it is because it was too vague and would make gun control illegal. That is why I rewrote a better version of it in which guns are legal and gun control is mandatory.

[Forlini and its Dominion]

"We see this second version of the said proposal as redundant and unnecessary."

- Ambassador Montazeri, speaking to fellow permanent representatives at a cafe right across WAHQ

[-Larry- (Ancient)]

OOC: stop using OOC to talk about IC things.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...That is why I rewrote a better version of it in which guns are legal and gun control is mandatory.

OOC: If that were what you'd done, perhaps you could make this argument. What I see is three paragraphs about psychological evaluations and one platitude about national regulation. Nowhere did you write anything which makes "guns [] legal and gun control [] mandatory." This does almost exactly as little as the other one, then, just slightly in the opposite direction.

[Excidium Planetis]

Firearm - a weapon from which any projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, whether it be made professionally or by the individual.

Slingshots are now firearms, apparently.

[Remokistan]

That could be true though, depending on what you're firing

[Imperium Anglorum]

Firearm - a weapon from which any projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, whether it be made professionally or by the individual.

Slingshots are now firearms, apparently.

<sarcasm> Our slingshots throw projectiles of self-contained semi-stable antimatter! They are obviously firearms! </sarcasm>

[Alvisiror]

Slingshots are now firearms, apparently.

Firearm - a weapon from which any projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, whether it be made professionally or by the individual.

If it is not capable of causing serious injury or death than it is not a firearm. So technically a slingshot that just shoots paper is not a firearm but if rocks are used than it is.

[Shazbotdom]

Slingshots are now firearms, apparently.

Firearm - a weapon from which any projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, whether it be made professionally or by the individual.

If it is not capable of causing serious injury or death than it is not a firearm. So technically a slingshot that just shoots paper is not a firearm but if rocks are used than it is.

Slingshots can be used to propel BB's, Rocks, etc. Which CAN cause serious injury. Therefore by the definition that you have given, they are classified as a "Firearm".

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Slingshots are now firearms, apparently.

Firearm - a weapon from which any projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, whether it be made professionally or by the individual.

If it is not capable of causing serious injury or death than it is not a firearm. So technically a slingshot that just shoots paper is not a firearm but if rocks are used than it is.

...and you don't see why this is an enormous problem for your proposal?



Here's a suggestion for something to add to the next draft, then: lighter fluid and a match.

[Excidium Planetis]

Slingshots are now firearms, apparently.

Firearm - a weapon from which any projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, whether it be made professionally or by the individual.

If it is not capable of causing serious injury or death than it is not a firearm. So technically a slingshot that just shoots paper is not a firearm but if rocks are used than it is.

Please explain the difference between a paper shooting slingshot and a rock shooting slingshot. I was under the impression that you could load pretty much any small object into a slingshot. How would you determine which slingshots are firearms and which ones are not?

[Herby]

Wait... what am I reading here? You want to ensure that "all citizens have the right to defend themselves and own firearms"... by mandating background checks and psychiatric evaluations? Are you trying to loosen gun control as per your description, or tighten gun control as per your active clauses?

[Alvisiror]

Wait... what am I reading here? You want to ensure that "all citizens have the right to defend themselves and own firearms"... by mandating background checks and psychiatric evaluations? Are you trying to loosen gun control as per your description, or tighten gun control as per your active clauses?

Give people the right to own firearms but make sure they go through background checks and psychiatric evaluations.

Firearm - a weapon from which any projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, whether it be made professionally or by the individual.

If it is not capable of causing serious injury or death than it is not a firearm. So technically a slingshot that just shoots paper is not a firearm but if rocks are used than it is.

Please explain the difference between a paper shooting slingshot and a rock shooting slingshot. I was under the impression that you could load pretty much any small object into a slingshot. How would you determine which slingshots are firearms and which ones are not?

OOC:I guess I should change the definition of a firearm since slingshots are not the primary concern. Originally I was thinking of "a weapon that has a barrel through which a projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person whether it be made professionally or by the individual" but I felt that there may be some nations with firearms that did not use barrels and could have some other delivery system which I hadn't thought of.

[Excidium Planetis]

Wait... what am I reading here? You want to ensure that "all citizens have the right to defend themselves and own firearms"... by mandating background checks and psychiatric evaluations? Are you trying to loosen gun control as per your description, or tighten gun control as per your active clauses?

Give people the right to own firearms but make sure they go through background checks and psychiatric evaluations.

Please explain the difference between a paper shooting slingshot and a rock shooting slingshot. I was under the impression that you could load pretty much any small object into a slingshot. How would you determine which slingshots are firearms and which ones are not?

OOC:I guess I should change the definition of a firearm since slingshots are not the primary concern. Originally I was thinking of "a weapon that has a barrel through which a projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person whether it be made professionally or by the individual" but I felt that there may be some nations with firearms that did not use barrels and could have some other delivery system which I hadn't thought of.

How about "a weapon which either A) launches a projectile through chemical energy or magnetic force or B) fires directed energy"

That should cover all "guns" and rockets as well as railguns, coilguns, and directed energy weapons.

[Tinfect]

"Ambassador, let's not do this again. The original proposal is currently failing by a wide margin, and no modifications you can make to the concept will salvage the inevitable trainwreck of a proposal on this subject. As explained in the earlier discussion, The Imperium sees no reason why a Civilian should be allowed access to Military Technology, when other, non-lethal methods of Self Defence are available, more easily obtained, and, most importantly, Legal. Military Technology, such as Firearms, is something that only the Military should have access to. A Civilian has no more need of a 47th Series D Pulse Rifle, than a T-34 Anti-Vehicle Railgun, and has no right to access either of them. The simplest way to keep Military Technology out of the hands of Criminals, is to ensure that no Firearms enter the Public Service, thus, the only way to obtain such weaponry, would be to either steal it from the Military, which, due to the Criminals lacking weaponry, is impossible, or to construct it themselves, which is quite a large risk, if you want it to be even marginally effective against Military-Grade Technology.
Yours, like all other attempts to write such a proposal, gives no adequate reason for why a Civilian would require use of Lethal Weaponry."

[Alvisiror]

"Ambassador, let's not do this again. The original proposal is currently failing by a wide margin, and no modifications you can make to the concept will salvage the inevitable trainwreck of a proposal on this subject. As explained in the earlier discussion, The Imperium sees no reason why a Civilian should be allowed access to Military Technology, when other, non-lethal methods of Self Defence are available, more easily obtained, and, most importantly, Legal. Military Technology, such as Firearms, is something that only the Military should have access to. A Civilian has no more need of a 47th Series D Pulse Rifle, than a T-34 Anti-Vehicle Railgun, and has no right to access either of them. The simplest way to keep Military Technology out of the hands of Criminals, is to ensure that no Firearms enter the Public Service, thus, the only way to obtain such weaponry, would be to either steal it from the Military, which, due to the Criminals lacking weaponry, is impossible, or to construct it themselves, which is quite a large risk, if you want it to be even marginally effective against Military-Grade Technology.
Yours, like all other attempts to write such a proposal, gives no adequate reason for why a Civilian would require use of Lethal Weaponry."

As stated in the draft, it is up to each nation to determine which weapons are accessible to the civilian population. Your nation does not have to provide top of the line military grade hardware to civilians.

[Alvisiror]

How about "a weapon which either A) launches a projectile through chemical energy or magnetic force or B) fires directed energy"

That should cover all "guns" and rockets as well as railguns, coilguns, and directed energy weapons.

Thanks the second draft has been posted using the first suggested change

[Tinfect]

As stated in the draft, it is up to each nation to determine which weapons are accessible to the civilian population. Your nation does not have to provide top of the line military grade hardware to civilians.

"And what would you have us provide them with? Decade-Old Technology? That would still provide them access to fully-capable Military Grade hardware. And that still does not address the issue to Criminals obtaining weapons. This law would still make it several hundred times easier to obtain weaponry, with comparatively little risk to our current state. I am not sure how things go in your Nation, but the Imperium has had only one Firearm related crime in the last decade. This proposal would cause such crimes to take place with alarming regularity."

[Herby]

Wait... what am I reading here? You want to ensure that "all citizens have the right to defend themselves and own firearms"... by mandating background checks and psychiatric evaluations? Are you trying to loosen gun control as per your description, or tighten gun control as per your active clauses?

Give people the right to own firearms but make sure they go through background checks and psychiatric evaluations.

One, you did not answer the question -- tighten or loosen gun control? -- and, two, nothing in your active clauses gives anyone the right to own firearms. You have a preamble that states that your goal is to ensure the right to bear arms, but then your legislative clauses don't do that. Not only does this proposal actually take rights away from a subset of citizens by mandating background checks and psychological evaluations, making it harder for some to own guns, but your last paragraph can be taken as a blocker -- you're allowing individual nations to self-regulate.

So, okay, guns are now totally outlawed in my nation. Am I in compliance with this resolution as written? Well, except for the preamble, which is not legislative in nature anyway... yes I am! Sure, if someone in my nation wants to own a gun, I can do a background check and send them out to a shrink, but then... that's it, I can still forbid them from legally owning a gun, whether they pass or fail.