[PRELIM. DRAFT] Gun Ownership

[Wrapper]

(OOC: Okay, since I RP a pacifist nation, I do get tired of seeing proposals that mandate allowing gun ownership in all WA nations. As I'm sure those who permit gun ownership don't want to see bans on weapons. So, to fix what I perceive as a problem, I present the following blocker. I don't know how feasible/legal such a blocker is, or if I can make this palatable to nations on both sides of the issue, especially if I have to pick "relax" or "tighten" up front, but I'm willing to try. This is in the early stages, and it likely needs a lot of work, so, all input from both sides will be considered.)

Gun Ownership
Category: Gun Control/Tighten

UNDERSTANDING that some member nations allow gun ownership by its citizens as an inalienable right in hunting, sport, and self-defense;

COGNIZANT that some member nations prohibit gun ownership in the interests of personal safety and political stability;

CONCEDING that there is no single right answer to the question of whether or not member nations should allow or prohibit gun ownership;

THEREFORE REALIZING that international legislation mandating the allowance or prohibition of gun ownership would prove divisive in the World Assembly;

The General Assembly HEREBY:

CONFIRMS that member nations have the ability, sovereignty and responsibility to legislate on gun ownership, including a universal allowance or a universal ban, within their borders;

MANDATES that member nations properly codify rules on gun ownership that do not contradict existing international law;

URGES member nations to enact regulations to provide for the secure storage and safe usage of guns in the best manner they see fit;

RECOMMENDS that member nations enact regulations to prevent criminals with a history of gun violence from obtaining such weapons;

CLARIFIES that this resolution allows further WA legislation on the matter, provided such legislation does not involve a universal ban or universal allowance on gun ownership.

[Araraukar]

OOC: At a quick once-over, it seems sort of legit... but if you're essentially trying to shut off the Gun Control category, it's an illegal one.

[Wrapper]

OOC: At a quick once-over, it seems sort of legit... but if you're essentially trying to shut off the Gun Control category, it's an illegal one.

OOC: To clarify, that's exactly what I don't want to do. I just don't want to see "everyone gets a gun" and "ban all guns" proposals.

[Strag]

OOC: I actually like this a lot.

[Araraukar]

OOC: At a quick once-over, it seems sort of legit... but if you're essentially trying to shut off the Gun Control category, it's an illegal one.

OOC: To clarify, that's exactly what I don't want to do. I just don't want to see "everyone gets a gun" and "ban all guns" proposals.

OOC: It's just that it looks like you're trying to do everything at once; let nations be NatSov about it, force them to legislate on gun ownership, recommend safe storage and say it's not a good idea to give guns to (gun)violent criminals... All the other things I can think of that would fit into the category, come up as "micromanagement".

Mind you, that doesn't mean there wasn't anything else, it's just that I'm not into gun RPing, hence pacifist nation and little knowledge of firearms beyond what I see on MythBusters.

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

OOC: Seems fair from what I can see in my current NyQuil induced stupor.

nitpicks:

CONCEDING that there is no single right answer to the question of whether or not member nations should allow or prohibit gun ownership;

I think many nations would find issue with conceding that their way isn't the right way. What about

CONCEDING that this constant stream of unpassable legislation is extremely tedious.

URGES member nations to enact regulations to provide for the secure storage and safe usage of guns in the best manner they see fit;
RECOMMENDS that member nations enact regulations to prevent criminals with a history of gun violence from obtaining such weapons;

I'd switch the URGES and RECOMMENDS. The latter seems far more deserving of stronger language.

OOC: It's just that it looks like you're trying to do everything at once; let nations be NatSov about it, force them to legislate on gun ownership, recommend safe storage and say it's not a good idea to give guns to (gun)violent criminals... All the other things I can think of that would fit into the category, come up as "micromanagement".

Oh don't worry, there are plenty of regulations this bill doesn't cover. Registration, background checks, permits, waiting periods, micro stamping, insurance, restrictions on carry, limits on types on guns, their features, magazines size or type of ammunition.

[Wallenburg]

CONFIRMS that member nations have the ability, sovereignty and responsibility to legislate on gun ownership, including a universal allowance or a universal ban, within their borders;

"This reads as a requirement that member nations implement either 'a universal allowance or a universal ban' on gun ownership."

MANDATES that member nations properly codify rules on gun ownership that do not contradict existing international law;

"This clause is entirely unnecessary, Ambassador."

[Separatist Peoples]

MANDATES that member nations properly codify rules on gun ownership that do not contradict existing international law;

"This clause is entirely unnecessary, Ambassador."

"Nations use poorly codified and promulgated laws to oppress individuals all the time. This prevents that and ensures such laws are available for research."

[Wrapper]

OOC: To clarify, that's exactly what I don't want to do. I just don't want to see "everyone gets a gun" and "ban all guns" proposals.

OOC: It's just that it looks like you're trying to do everything at once; let nations be NatSov about it, force them to legislate on gun ownership, recommend safe storage and say it's not a good idea to give guns to (gun)violent criminals... All the other things I can think of that would fit into the category, come up as "micromanagement".

OOC: Very fair point. I'll likely cut at least one of those active clauses.

CONCEDING that there is no single right answer to the question of whether or not member nations should allow or prohibit gun ownership;

I think many nations would find issue with conceding that their way isn't the right way. What about

CONCEDING that this constant stream of unpassable legislation is extremely tedious.

Hmmm yes indeed. I shall have to, erm, borrow that wording, thank you.

CONFIRMS that member nations have the ability, sovereignty and responsibility to legislate on gun ownership, including a universal allowance or a universal ban, within their borders;

"This reads as a requirement that member nations implement either 'a universal allowance or a universal ban' on gun ownership."

That is certainly not the intent. We'll consider better wording here; perhaps "responsibility" is the wrong word to use in this context.

"This clause is entirely unnecessary, Ambassador."

"Nations use poorly codified and promulgated laws to oppress individuals all the time. This prevents that and ensures such laws are available for research."

We'll consider the pros and cons of the MANDATES clause as we go along; it's quite likely it will be modified or possibly excised by the time we're done.

[Wallenburg]

MANDATES that member nations properly codify rules on gun ownership that do not contradict existing international law;

"This clause is entirely unnecessary, Ambassador."

Reiterated, to clarify that this clause duplicates extant law.

[Separatist Peoples]

"This clause is entirely unnecessary, Ambassador."

Reiterated, to clarify that this clause duplicates extant law.

OOC: No Penalty Without Law...forgot about that one until after Wallenburg went and drafted something. le Sigh...sorry.

[Wrapper]

"This clause is entirely unnecessary, Ambassador."

Reiterated, to clarify that this clause duplicates extant law.

AHUME: Told you.

ARI: Shut up.

OOC: In my defense, April and May were quite the blur....

[Bananaistan]

"I find it hard to see how this wouldn't block the entire category."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"I find it hard to see how this wouldn't block the entire category."

"It can block off the entire category, as long as that's not the only thing it does. However, Mr. Hornwood's right that you're skirting very close to that line."

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

"I find it hard to see how this wouldn't block the entire category."

"There are plenty of subjects not covered by this law. In fact I have a list."

[Bananaistan]

"I find it hard to see how this wouldn't block the entire category."

"It can block off the entire category, as long as that's not the only thing it does. However, Mr. Hornwood's right that you're skirting very close to that line."

The resolution you linked to blocks off an area of effect at most. The interpretation of the following rule has always been that we can't actually block off an entire category.

To summarize regarding blockers: being a blocker isn't illegal. It's being a blocker and nothing else that gets a proposal dinged. That, or closing off an entire area of WA legislation -- say, "RESERVES to nations the power to make all decisions on all matters concerning the human rights of their citizens and residents" -- or trying to write the "unrepealable" resolution: "RESOLVES that the WA shall never speak of this again".

"There are plenty of subjects not covered by this law. In fact I have a list."

I'd like to see the list of what other gun control resolutions would be legal after this in light of the CONFIRMS clause.

[Goddess Relief Office]

Can this not be shorter? A good proposal don't need to be long.

Seems like the only clause that matter is the very last one.

[Araraukar]

Oh don't worry, there are plenty of regulations this bill doesn't cover. Registration, background checks, permits, waiting periods, micro stamping, insurance, restrictions on carry, limits on types on guns, their features, magazines size or type of ammunition.

...all of which tends to fall under "micromanagement". (I mean, seriously, magazine size as international issue? Not likely.)

CONFIRMS that member nations have the ability, sovereignty and responsibility to legislate on gun ownership, including a universal allowance or a universal ban, within their borders;

"This reads as a requirement that member nations implement either 'a universal allowance or a universal ban' on gun ownership."

That is certainly not the intent. We'll consider better wording here; perhaps "responsibility" is the wrong word to use in this context.

Why not "including but not limited to"?

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

Oh don't worry, there are plenty of regulations this bill doesn't cover. Registration, background checks, permits, waiting periods, micro stamping, insurance, restrictions on carry, limits on types on guns, their features, magazines size or type of ammunition.

...all of which tends to fall under "micromanagement". (I mean, seriously, magazine size as international issue? Not likely.)

well yeah, it's gun control.

[Araraukar]

well yeah, it's gun control.

Oh don't worry, there are plenty of regulations this bill doesn't cover.

You implied there were other perfectly legitimate non-micromanagerial international issues left.

[Povinksi]

OOC: I actually like this a lot.

Same here.

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

well yeah, it's gun control.

Oh don't worry, there are plenty of regulations this bill doesn't cover.

You implied there were other perfectly legitimate non-micromanagerial international issues left.

Well I retract the implication. Illegitimate micromanagement of a personal lives comes with the category.

[John Turner]

"I find it hard to see how this wouldn't block the entire category."

That is a concern of mine as well. Whilst it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing to block off this entire category, or better yet, just remove it all together, blocking off an entire category is technically illegal:

Blockers

Resolutions cannot be "repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.

To summarize regarding blockers: being a blocker isn't illegal. It's being a blocker and nothing else that gets a proposal dinged. That, or closing off an entire area of WA legislation -- say, "RESERVES to nations the power to make all decisions on all matters concerning the human rights of their citizens and residents" -- or trying to write the "unrepealable" resolution: "RESOLVES that the WA shall never speak of this again".

If the illegality is removed, The Federation would be proud to offer its full support for these measures.

[We Couldnt Agree On A Name]

being a blocker isn't illegal. It's being a blocker and nothing else that gets a proposal dinged. That, or closing off an entire area of WA legislation

MANDATES that member nations properly codify rules on gun ownership that do not contradict existing international law;

URGES member nations to enact regulations to provide for the secure storage and safe usage of guns in the best manner they see fit;

RECOMMENDS that member nations enact regulations to prevent criminals with a history of gun violence from obtaining such weapons;

CLARIFIES that this resolution allows further WA legislation on the matter, provided such legislation does not involve a universal ban or universal allowance on gun ownership.

[Gandharasila]

We object to the words "and responsibility to legislate" in the given clause.

CONFIRMS that member nations have the ability, sovereignty and responsibility to legislate on gun ownership, including a universal allowance or a universal ban, within their borders;