by Imperium Anglorum » Sun Dec 04, 2016 5:33 pm
by Wallenburg » Sun Dec 04, 2016 5:34 pm
by Tridus » Sun Dec 04, 2016 5:37 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:You should read the GA proposal rules [ https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348 ], specifically, the section on the Blocker Rule.
by Wallenburg » Sun Dec 04, 2016 5:39 pm
Tridus wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:You should read the GA proposal rules [ https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348 ], specifically, the section on the Blocker Rule.
I removed the null and void clause. Other than that, I don't see how it violates any current laws or the GA proposal rules, as it still allows for bills in the gun control category.
by Tridus » Sun Dec 04, 2016 5:44 pm
Wallenburg wrote:Tridus wrote:I removed the null and void clause. Other than that, I don't see how it violates any current laws or the GA proposal rules, as it still allows for bills in the gun control category.
It prohibits legislation on nearly an entire category of issues. It's therefore an illegal blocker.
by Separatist Peoples » Sun Dec 04, 2016 5:46 pm
by The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp » Sun Dec 04, 2016 5:47 pm
by Tridus » Sun Dec 04, 2016 5:54 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Tridus wrote:
Not really, it only outlaws a complete ban on firearms and stand your ground laws. It has a clause reserving the WA to make any legislation on an international scale.
OOC: Anything that would control it on an international scale would fall under Global Disarmament. Your proposal isn't legal.
by Tzapotltec » Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:05 pm
by Separatist Peoples » Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:16 pm
Tzapotltec wrote:I love how this proposal to decrease WA overreach is in itself a WA overreach. Bravo.
by Tridus » Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:19 pm
by Imperium Anglorum » Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:26 pm
Tridus wrote:But it's only in regards to an overall ban, international licensing, and stand your ground. There is so much more that can be done. An automatic weapons band, assault weapons ban, etc. It doesn't close off the category, only a complete ban.
by Tzapotltec » Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:28 pm
by Tridus » Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:29 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Tridus wrote:But it's only in regards to an overall ban, international licensing, and stand your ground. There is so much more that can be done. An automatic weapons band, assault weapons ban, etc. It doesn't close off the category, only a complete ban.
It's a blocker rule violation because it blocks something without mandating any other actions.
by Imperium Anglorum » Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:32 pm
Tridus wrote:Also, the blocker rule sounds very limiting in what can be passed.
by Tridus » Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:32 pm
Tzapotltec wrote:With how difficult it would be to pass an outright ban on all guns, this would be redundant and unnecessary. If in some freakish parallel universe a large enough amount of member nations wanted a total gun ban and could actually pass that, they shouldn't have to go through a pointless repeal process first.
by Tridus » Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:34 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Tridus wrote:Also, the blocker rule sounds very limiting in what can be passed.
It really isn't. it just prohibits the passage of resolutions which serve no purpose other than preventing the WA from doing something without first repealing that resolution. What is really limiting are the contradiction, duplication, category, and committee rules.
by Excidium Planetis » Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:19 am
Singaporean Transhumans wrote:You didn't know about Excidium? The greatest space nomads in the NS multiverse with a healthy dose (read: over 9000 percent) of realism?
Saveyou Island wrote:"Warmest welcomes to the Assembly, ambassador. You'll soon learn to hate everyone here."
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Digital Network Defence is pretty meh
News: AI wins Dawn Fleet election for High Counselor.
by Imperium Anglorum » Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:42 am
Blockers: Proposals cannot be "repeal-proof" or prohibit legislation on broad and specific issues. However, 'Blockers' themselves are not illegal provided there is additional action (eg. GAR#10: Nuclear Arms Possession Act).
by Tridus » Mon Dec 05, 2016 12:53 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Blockers: Proposals cannot be "repeal-proof" or prohibit legislation on broad and specific issues. However, 'Blockers' themselves are not illegal provided there is additional action (eg. GAR#10: Nuclear Arms Possession Act).
by Kaboomlandia » Mon Dec 05, 2016 8:36 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement