NationStates

Posted: **Sun Dec 04, 2016 5:29 pm**

Deleted

Posted: **Sun Dec 04, 2016 5:33 pm**

You should read the GA proposal rules [ https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348 ], specifically, the section on the Blocker Rule.

Posted: **Sun Dec 04, 2016 5:34 pm**

Hello there. Welcome to the General Assembly. Thank you for posting this draft before submitting it through the game.

This bill almost blocks the entire Gun Control category without even demanding anything of member nations. Therefore, it violates the blocker rule, and is illegal.

Posted: **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.

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.

Posted: **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.

It prohibits legislation on nearly an entire category of issues. It's therefore an illegal blocker.

Posted: **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.

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.

Posted: **Sun Dec 04, 2016 5:46 pm**

Tridus wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:It prohibits legislation on nearly an entire category of issues. It's therefore an illegal blocker.

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.

Posted: **Sun Dec 04, 2016 5:47 pm**

"I agree with the other delegations, this idea is illegal."

Posted: **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.

I deleted that clause to, opinions now?

Posted: **Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:05 pm**

I love how this proposal to decrease WA overreach is in itself a WA overreach. Bravo.

Posted: **Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:13 pm**

Tzapotltec wrote:I love how this proposal to decrease WA overreach is in itself a WA overreach. Bravo.

I got rid of that clause? How is it an overreach?

Posted: **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.

OOC: That's the blocker rule for you. It isn't based on WA power, its based on closing off the category.

Posted: **Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:19 pm**

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Tzapotltec wrote:I love how this proposal to decrease WA overreach is in itself a WA overreach. Bravo.

OOC: That's the blocker rule for you. It isn't based on WA power, its based on closing off the category.

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.

Posted: **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.

It's a blocker rule violation because it blocks something without mandating any other actions.

Posted: **Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:28 pm**

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.

Posted: **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.

So, if I mandate anything, then doesn't the blocker rule no longer apply?

Also, the blocker rule sounds very limiting in what can be passed.

Posted: **Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:32 pm**

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.

Posted: **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.

Well, its a protection of national control of gun laws. An outright ban would be impossibly hard to pass, but the fact that it can is a violation of national sovereignty.

Posted: **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.

Well, this would be something akin to throwing laws to the states in the U.S., so it does make sense in the sense that it reserves the right to pass gun laws for the nations rather than the in-game equivalent of the U.N.

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:19 am**

"This proposal does nothing but prohibit WA legislation. It is my opinion that the WA should not make a habit of closing off whole areas of potential reasonable international intervention for no good reason."

Posted: **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).

Posted: **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).

Yeah, I'm gonna delete this resolution

Posted: **Mon Dec 05, 2016 8:36 pm**

OOC: Note that it is in very poor taste to blank your OP if you're scrapping a resolution. Just tag it as [DROPPED] or something and leave it.

#notamod