[DRAFT] Automatic Weapons Act [I redid it]

[Republic of Tacos]

Against.

Member states are fully competent to ban civilian ownership of machine guns if they think it threatens public safety. The WA does not exist to dictate to member states on matters that solely concern their own internal police.

I suggest you reread the resolution.

[Chinevion]

Against.

Member states are fully competent to ban civilian ownership of machine guns if they think it threatens public safety. The WA does not exist to dictate to member states on matters that solely concern their own internal police.

I agree, Lets say country x is a regions wa delegate and believes in the 2nd amendment but this act passes, he would have to leave the WA to allow his citizens to own guns. The job of the Wa is not to do this. Isint unlicensed gun ownership already illegal?

[Separatist Peoples]

"Its incredibly unlikely, so its a nonissue, ambassador. But that's why we're so critical here."

"I guess, but the fact that it could still occur is very bad. Some documents should be unnameable, especially when it involves the rights of a nation and its people."

"Ambassador, no laws are unamendable."

Anyway, I redid the resolution, mods, let me know if this resolution should be in a different thread from the old one.

"Ambassador, nations do not require WA authorization to license or otherwise restrict automatic weapons. Nations are competent enough to make this determination on their own. The new edits ameliorate the issues not at all."

[Republic of Tacos]

Against.

Member states are fully competent to ban civilian ownership of machine guns if they think it threatens public safety. The WA does not exist to dictate to member states on matters that solely concern their own internal police.

I agree, Lets say country x is a regions wa delegate and believes in the 2nd amendment but this act passes, he would have to leave the WA to allow his citizens to own guns. The job of the Wa is not to do this.

Ambassador, I suggest you re-read the resolution.

[Chinevion]

Isn't unlicensed gun ownership already criminal?

[Christian Democrats]

Against.

Member states are fully competent to ban civilian ownership of machine guns if they think it threatens public safety. The WA does not exist to dictate to member states on matters that solely concern their own internal police.

I suggest you reread the resolution.

Your new version is virtually meaningless. The GA "[c]riminalizes all un-licensed ownership of automatic weapons by civilians." A nation could bypass this proposal simply by licensing everybody. Heck, it could give gun dealers the authority to license purchasers.

[Separatist Peoples]

Isn't unlicensed gun ownership already criminal?

"No. No license is necessary for owning semiautomatic weapons in the C.D.S.P."

[Chinevion]

Isn't unlicensed gun ownership already criminal?

"No. No license is necessary for owning semiautomatic weapons in the C.D.S.P."

But this is for automatic weapons

[Separatist Peoples]

"No. No license is necessary for owning semiautomatic weapons in the C.D.S.P."

But this is for automatic weapons

"If you don't want to license automatic weapons, don't do it in your nation. It only illegal if your nation wants it to be."

[Anfra]

something even the ludicrous parody real-time strategy game entitled 'Real Life' makes note of in its 'Second Amendment'"

OOC: You're not helping the stereotype of Americans believing their country to be the only one in existence.

Wait... we're not?

[Tridus]

Believing that civilians do need firearms to protect themselves, and that these firearms should be distributed in a responsible manner.

Defining an automatic weapon as a machine that can fire a Lethal Projectile, reload itself without help from a Human, Animal, or Another Machine, and continue firing until its Ammunition is depleted or the Trigger or Firing Button is released.

Noting that possession of such a device is acceptable when possessed by military personnel during war or peacetime.

Also noting that member states may take this law further into effect by banning ownership of an automatic weapon by civilians.

Encouraging member states that allow ownership of such weapons to enforce background checks before purchase of such weaponry.

Hereby

Criminalizes all un-licensed ownership of automatic weapons by civilians.

Ensures that member states background checks upon those who own or are purchasing such weapons.

Keeps automatic weapons in the hands of those who pass such background checks.

Thoughts?

Better, but I still have a problem with the licensing thing. Is it an international license, or a national license? If national, are you requiring nations to have licenses?

[Tridus]

Believing that civilians do need firearms to protect themselves, and that these firearms should be distributed in a responsible manner.

Defining an automatic weapon as a machine that can fire a Lethal Projectile, reload itself without help from a Human, Animal, or Another Machine, and continue firing until its Ammunition is depleted or the Trigger or Firing Button is released.

Noting that possession of such a device is acceptable when possessed by military personnel during war or peacetime.

Also noting that member states may take this law further into effect by banning ownership of an automatic weapon by civilians.

Encouraging member states that allow ownership of such weapons to enforce background checks before purchase of such weaponry.

Hereby

Criminalizes all un-licensed ownership of automatic weapons by civilians.

Ensures that member states background checks upon those who own or are purchasing such weapons.

Keeps automatic weapons in the hands of those who pass such background checks.

Thoughts?

Also, do you know how incredibly easy it is to hot wire a semi-auto gun to make it auto? That way, people could purchase a semi-auto gun and make it auto and the nation would have no way of telling if anyone done it.

[Escape from Trump]

If you really want nations to ban automatic weapons, author an issue. This'll never be passed as a WA Resolution.

[North Richland]

I believe the WA has no right to restrict the weapon rights of the civilians of any nation. I plan on opposing this act if it is ever put to a vote.

[Republic of Tacos]

Believing that civilians do need firearms to protect themselves, and that these firearms should be distributed in a responsible manner.

Defining an automatic weapon as a machine that can fire a Lethal Projectile, reload itself without help from a Human, Animal, or Another Machine, and continue firing until its Ammunition is depleted or the Trigger or Firing Button is released.

Noting that possession of such a device is acceptable when possessed by military personnel during war or peacetime.

Also noting that member states may take this law further into effect by banning ownership of an automatic weapon by civilians.

Encouraging member states that allow ownership of such weapons to enforce background checks before purchase of such weaponry.

Hereby

Criminalizes all un-licensed ownership of automatic weapons by civilians.

Ensures that member states background checks upon those who own or are purchasing such weapons.

Keeps automatic weapons in the hands of those who pass such background checks.

Thoughts?

Also, do you know how incredibly easy it is to hot wire a semi-auto gun to make it auto? That way, people could purchase a semi-auto gun and make it auto and the nation would have no way of telling if anyone done it.

Didn't think of that. Though this is a flaw in the law, if these people are caught by the state with such weapons, this is consider as unlicensed ownership.

[Tridus]

If you really want nations to ban automatic weapons, author an issue. This'll never be passed as a WA Resolution.

What's an issue? You mean national issues? If so,

"He is entitled to be concerned about guns pouring into his country from other nations."

[Tridus]

Also, do you know how incredibly easy it is to hot wire a semi-auto gun to make it auto? That way, people could purchase a semi-auto gun and make it auto and the nation would have no way of telling if anyone done it.

Didn't think of that. Though this is a flaw in the law, if these people are caught by the state with such weapons, this is consider as unlicensed ownership.

What if the gun was licensed as a semi-auto weapon? Does that carry over?

[Republic of Tacos]

If you really want nations to ban automatic weapons, author an issue. This'll never be passed as a WA Resolution.

Good thing they I'm not trying to ban them.

I believe the WA has no right to restrict the weapon rights of the civilians of any nation. I plan on opposing this act if it is ever put to a vote.

Not necessarily. See, if you have some kind of crime history of some sort, then it'll restrict your right, but if you're clean, sure!

[Republic of Tacos]

Didn't think of that. Though this is a flaw in the law, if these people are caught by the state with such weapons, this is consider as unlicensed ownership.

What if the gun was licensed as a semi-auto weapon? Does that carry over?

This is a quite narrow law. It is not requiring a license for a semi-auto weapon, though if a member state had one in place for it, it would not carry over.

[Tridus]

What if the gun was licensed as a semi-auto weapon? Does that carry over?

This is a quite narrow law. It is not requiring a license for a semi-auto weapon, though if a member state had one in place for it, it would not carry over.

Got it

[Escape from Trump]

If you really want nations to ban automatic weapons, author an issue. This'll never be passed as a WA Resolution.

Good thing they I'm not trying to ban them.

Ban, restrict, it's the same point I'm trying to make. The WA isn't meant to debate hot button political topics. Even if this resolution makes it through, it'll most definitely be repealed. The WA is meant for enforcing basic human rights, not debates about gun control.

[Separatist Peoples]

What if the gun was licensed as a semi-auto weapon? Does that carry over?

This is a quite narrow law. It is not requiring a license for a semi-auto weapon, though if a member state had one in place for it, it would not carry over.

"So why is this necessary? Why can't member states deal with this themselves? What possible international benefit is there to turning this over to the WA?"

[Tinfect]

Believing that civilians do need firearms to protect themselves, and that these firearms should be distributed in a responsible manner.

"This premise is patently false. The failure of certain Member-States to adequately protect their citizens from hostile forces, or criminal activity, is their own failure. In the Imperium, and certainly many other Member-States, public safety is ensured without following a policy of Civil Mutually-Assured-Destruction."

Defining an automatic weapon as a machine that can fire a Lethal Projectile, reload itself without help from a Human, Animal, or Another Machine, and continue firing until its Ammunition is depleted or the Trigger or Firing Button is released.

"This definition is extremely flawed, Ambassador. I believe the term you seek is 'Automatic-Cycling', as 'Automatic-Reloading' implies that the weapon is capable of replacing depleted ammunition sources autonomously."

Noting that possession of such a device is acceptable when possessed by military personnel during war or peacetime.

"Only when in active service, of course, Military Personnel cannot be allowed to maintain armament when acting as civilians.

In any case, this legislation is simply unnecessary. In those Member-States in which the State has failed to ensure the safety of its citizens, the State may be unable to provide any efficient services of background-checking, and licensing; in such a State, the delays in attaining weaponry may lead to the civilian in question being unable to defend themselves from... whatever dangers might exist in such Anarchies.

As such, the Imperium sees little reason to support this legislation."

[Excidium Planetis]

"Why not go one step further and require nations to issue gun licenses and background checks for all gun purchasers, not just for those buying automatic weapons? That sounds like a sensible policy that most nations could get behind."

[Calladan]

I realise this is going to sound like I am arguing both sides, but while I had objections to the original version of the proposal because I don't think The WA should be writing gun legislation, I now have objections because I don't think The WA should be telling me that my citizens should be allowed to have guns.

Calladan banned ALL guns after several mass shooting incidents and since then - no more mass shootings and far, far, far fewer murders, shootings and gun crimes in general. So we would HIGHLY protest any WA laws that seek to force us to put guns back in the hands of our citizens. Especially if they start with automatic weapons.

So while I understand that other nations might want to let their citizens have the power to commit mass murder at will, and from long distances, we have decided that that is not a basic right and not one our citizens need. (And when I say we, I don't mean "we the government", I mean "we the people" - the move to ban guns was almost universally supported).

Believing that civilians do need firearms to protect themselves

They really don't. They have the police. And the military. And the government. And - at a push - kitchen knives, laptops, frying pans (never under estimate the power of a good frying pan) and even shoes. The last thing they need is guns. (Okay - the last thing they need is a hand held nuke. But next to that, guns are probably high up on the list).