[SUBMITTED] Firearms and Intl Travel

[Mousebumples]

I've spotted a few more potential legality issues, but I'll wait until I see the next draft before I give any details. (If you're already taking care of them - which may be the case - I see no reason to mention them. )

[Quelesh]

The more I read this, the more I'm against it.

BANS minors from carrying firearms either on their person or among their luggage or other possessions when not inside nations where they retain citizenship;

First, I strongly oppose the clauses regarding minors. I oppose any WA-mandated age discrimination. In addition, this would require all nations that have an age of majority to discriminate on the basis of age against foreign youth when it comes to firearms, even if they do not so discriminate against native youth. (This may run afoul of the CoCR's prohibition of discrimination on the basis of nationality.)

1. No civilian, when in the process of traveling from a Nation of Destination to a Nation of Arrival, is allowed to carry a firearm(s) on their person;

This would prohibit individuals from walking across a national border while carrying a firearm, even if both nations allow the carrying of the firearm. Even if it were limited to e.g. air travel, there's no reason to prohibit individuals from carrying firearms while traveling from Nation A to Nation B if both Nation A and Nation B allow the carrying of firearms.

DECIDES that all criminal records held by WA member nations must be made available to the World Assembly at-large, so that nations, if they so wish, may prevent convicted criminals from entering their nations with a firearm(s);

This clause goes far beyond the ostensible scope of the proposal, and is frankly appalling. This would mandate that every WA member state release all criminal records (for both felons and misdemeanants, if they make such a distinction) for all individuals within their borders, whether they're dangerous or not and whether they're traveling internationally or not, to anyone who wants to look at them. The violation of privacy here is unconscionable.

ALLOWS WA member nations to set their own policies, requirements, and/or restrictions regarding firearms sale, ownership, possession, usage, etc., within their own borders;

I oppose this clause as well, because I oppose WA blockers in general. This clause serves no purpose but to prevent future WA legislation. A clause such as "CLARIFIES that this resolution does not affect the policies, requirements and/or restrictions of WA member nations regarding firearms sale, ownership, possession, usage, etc., within their own borders" would be more agreeable, because it does not prohibit future WA legislation either way.

[Darenjo]

First, another draft should be up in the next two days.

To Quelesh's post:
1. I'm keeping the clause about minors. Deal with it - the alternative is to allow babies to carry firearms. And, your point about CoCR is moot, since the clause involves discrimination against both nationals and foreigners without exception, making it based on age, which is legal.

2. The clause about criminal records should he gone by next draft. It's all part of the process.

3. The WA, though it certainly needs legislation on guns, frankly has better things to do. We may as well get something good passed (and I expect his to go through several more drafts), and leave the topic alone, hence the blocker.

[Bears Armed]

"So if a nation doesn't legally recognise minors as 'citizens', rather than just as 'nationals', it would have to bar them from carrying guns anywhere within that nation even under circumstances where that carriage would otherwise currently be perfectly legal? The passage of a resolution requiring that restriction of rights would become yet another barrier in the way of Bears Armed proper ever re-joining this organistion...
"Opposed."


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

[Akbarastan]

As much as I hate to say, Darenjo and Bears Armed have a legitimate point. I did not read the clause about minors carefully so I missed this.

Let me use an example here: if a father and son are from a city-state and wish to go on a hunting trip, they obviously would need to go abroad to find a suitible hunting location. Let us say that their nation has an age of majority of 18 and the neighboring country's is 21. The 20-year-old son would be considered a minor in the foreign nation and thus would not be allowed to hunt with his father under this draft.

My compromise would be to keep the ruling that minors may not have firearms on their person while in a foreign nation, except while engaging in activities that the host nation has given the minor a permit to participate in (e.g. hunting, shooting range, etc.). The host nation could issue these permits at the same time they issue hunting licenses, etc. and the permits would give the minor a specific date, time, and location that they would be permitted to handle firearms.

[Darenjo]

Okay. Here's the run-down of the new edits:

1. The stuff about minors is gone. After trying to apply Akbarastan's idea, I realized it would take up too much space, and that simply preventing minors from carrying guns on planes was a much better idea.
2. There are two new clause detailing exceptions for for Section II. Depending on responses, there may be a clause stating that, while the WA does not require the exceptions to follow Section II, individual nations may still require it.
3. A change to Section V makes it so that soldiers may not carry AK-47's on international civilian flights/boats/etc.
4. The clause about criminal records has been updated, but, pending a legality ruling from the mods, has been set apart from the rest of the proposal.

I'd like to offer an apology to Quelesh for making a mountain out of a molehill regarding the minors thing. It was unacceptable and rude, and I am deeply sorry for it.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Ms. Harper feels that the clause set aside should be dropped because I think it that is already part of the allowance for member countries to set their own policies, requirements, etc.

[Quelesh]

As I said on the regional forum, Darenjo, you weren't really rude; you were just expressing an opinion strongly.

I hope that the clause regarding criminal records will not be returning, regardless of the outcome of the legality ruling.

[Krioval]

In II.1, I believe that Your Excellency should refer to "nation of departure" rather than "nation of destination". Further, I think that the word "separate" or "different" should be applied just to make very clear that these clauses refer to separate nations. Yes, technically the exemption for traveling between countries with identical firearms laws would mean that, say, travel from Krioval to (within?) Krioval would be exempt, so it's not strictly necessary. Not sure how we'll vote on this should it reach the floor, but it is a solid piece of legislation nonetheless.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Darenjo]

In II.1, I believe that Your Excellency should refer to "nation of departure" rather than "nation of destination". Further, I think that the word "separate" or "different" should be applied just to make very clear that these clauses refer to separate nations. Yes, technically the exemption for traveling between countries with identical firearms laws would mean that, say, travel from Krioval to (within?) Krioval would be exempt, so it's not strictly necessary. Not sure how we'll vote on this should it reach the floor, but it is a solid piece of legislation nonetheless.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

I fixed the first part.

I did add "different", but it looks rather awkward. I'll look over it more later, and hopefully I'll come up with a better way to say that little bit.

Thanks.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

1. No civilian, when in the process of traveling from a Nation of Departure to a different Nation of Arrival, is allowed to carry a firearm(s) on their person;

I think this could be simplified to:

1. No civilian, when in the process of travelling to and/or from member countries, are allowed to carry a firearm(s) on their person;

-Ms. S. Harper.

[Darenjo]

Thanks Charlotte.

Next draft is going to hopefully be a lot shorter. I think that right now it's pushing the character limit.

[Krioval]

Sorry for not mentioning this earlier, but has Your Excellency received a ruling as to the legality of the category? I worry that any proposal that deals primarily with the conveyance of personal firearms could run into trouble under "International Security". I have no personal objections, mind.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Darenjo]

Sorry for not mentioning this earlier, but has Your Excellency received a ruling as to the legality of the category? I worry that any proposal that deals primarily with the conveyance of personal firearms could run into trouble under "International Security". I have no personal objections, mind.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

I did ask for a legality ruling on the currently separated part of the proposal. Ard said they would post the ruling here. I assume if there was a category issue that they would bring it up.

[Mousebumples]

I did ask for a legality ruling on the currently separated part of the proposal. Ard said they would post the ruling here. I assume if there was a category issue that they would bring it up.

Generally, wholesale legality rulings are not done by mods prior to submission. However, if you have specific questions regarding legality (such as those you voiced in the Q&A thread), they will generally answer those. I hope Ard will address the possible category violation, as that was another concern of mine when you had clauses regarding gun control laws with regards to minors, criminals, etc., in the proposal. (previous drafts) Those issues appear to be resolved as they are now left for individual member nations to determine, and this could arguably be International Security. Of course, I can understand Krioval's concerns as well, as this draft doesn't appear to specifically act to "boost police and military budgets" as I read it.

I don't know what other clauses could be added - perhaps something with regards to airport security personnel, which could be construed as being funded by "police budgets" ?

[Darenjo]

Same - I really don't know what else could be added.

Well, hopefully the next (maybe final?) draft will be up by the weekend. I have a feeling that this may not fit NS's character limit, so I'll be trying to say the same things in fewer words.

[Mousebumples]

Same - I really don't know what else could be added.

Well, hopefully the next (maybe final?) draft will be up by the weekend. I have a feeling that this may not fit NS's character limit, so I'll be trying to say the same things in fewer words.

OOC: I can help cut characters if needed - I'm good with that. And I should hopefully have more time over the next few days (Tues PM / Wednesday) to dig through things. I'm working this weekend, though (yes, including the Memorial Day holiday), so I doubt I'll have much more time to look over the final draft until midweek (again).

Still, I'm happy to help as I can.

[Darenjo]

Okay, so I'll be working on this over the next week as well. I may not be able to access NS from late Friday to Tuesday afternoon (American CDT). Any and all comments and insights are appreciated.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

II. IMPLEMENTS the following restrictions for all civilians regarding the carrying of firearms when traveling internationally:

This wording appears to be quite awkward because any laws on civilians require member country ratification. I know compliance but to make it happen member countries have to ratify it. Something like:

II. DIRECTS member countries to ratify the following restrictions for civilians in respect of international carriage of firearms:

[Ardchoille]

These were the questions you asked in the Q&A thread:

The STA, in setting the requirements for passports, does not require a mark of criminal conviction. Would it be legal to require such a mark on passports in my proposal (which is in "International Security" by the way)?

The STA also allows nations to deny entry if "national security is threatened", but makes no references to criminal records. Based on that, is it legal to allow nations to bar entry to certain people, not mentioned in the STA, in a separate resolution?

It would be illegal to try to amend STA, which says (my emphasis):

a) This organisation will establish minimum requirements of details to be included into passports, including but not limited to passport numbers, facial representations of the owner, name, date of birth, validity, and anti-forgery features;

That is, since STA has already given its committee the power to establish minimum requirements, but not listed what the requirements are, for all you and I know the committee may have already decided that criminal convictions must be recorded. In any case, adding a specific new requirement is amending the original.

On top of that, requiring full disclosure of criminal records to the WA opens a huge can of (privacy act) worms; and finally, questions about criminal records are usually found on visas -- ie, it's up to the nation being entered to ask. But that last is an RW consideration. For GA ones, I'll stick to ruling that this would be an amendment, and thus illegal.

I don't see it as fitting in the International Security category. The text of your proposal basically says that the people carrying guns in their luggage must "meet any and all requirements and/or restrictions regarding firearms possession and/or usage from any and all Nation(s) of Departure and Nation(s) of Arrival". I read that as saying that the laws are there already, any extra policemen needed have already been hired, and so this proposal doesn't create any extension in police budgets. Furthermore, this proposal is about control of guns in private hands, for which there's already a category. Too many little tweaks are needed to make the category even slightly relevant. While the intention may be to improve intenational security, the application is to control of private guns.

The strength is suss. You've labelled it "mild", but in the last clause you're having the WA sign away powers of control that it's already claimed -- the powers in the Gun Control category.

Related to that, your blocker (final) clause also looks illegal to me. Blockers for particular topics are acceptable, but what you're doing with the way it's worded now blocks an entire category -- in effect, you're trying to change the rules by wiping out a category via a proposal, which is metagaming. Possibly adding something like "subject to international law", and dropping the "etc" would help, since that doesn't limit the WA to existing laws or leave it unable to over-ride any new national laws brought in under the "etc". But it's so completely divorced from the rest of the legislation that I think it's simply irrelevant to the proposal. I'll leave that open for now, as I haven't discussed it in depth with other mods, but it's not looking good.

I'm completely stymied why someone in a car is more trusted with a gun than someone who packs it in his luggage. He can't carry it on his person, but he can leave it sitting on the seat to grab when someone on the other side of the border insults him by asking if he has anything to declare? I also think you should consider the situation of travellers on boats in areas where piracy is rife -- do the captain and crew have to keep their guns in their luggage between destinations? That clause seems a bit odd to me. The "accidental entry" ones seem OK.

Mostly, I'm finding it hard to judge legality because you keep saying "that'll go in the next draft". So regard these comments as contingent on what you write next time.

Note, I'm not saying the proposal's doomed. But a proper blocker has to be able to stand up to as many challenges as Flib's Nuclear Arms proposal has, so it needs to be sturdy.

[Darenjo]

Thank you Ard Your comments helped a lot.

Well, it seems that this may need somewhat of an overhaul. Or at least, several more drafts. Look out for the next one by mid next week.

[Darenjo]

Guess what? It's back. (Please read the OP for further details if you simply clicked on "First Unread Post".)

[Starkana]

"So if a nation doesn't legally recognise minors as 'citizens', rather than just as 'nationals', it would have to bar them from carrying guns anywhere within that nation even under circumstances where that carriage would otherwise currently be perfectly legal? The passage of a resolution requiring that restriction of rights would become yet another barrier in the way of Bears Armed proper ever re-joining this organistion...
"Opposed."

should minors be allowed to possess deadly firearms?

[Darenjo]

"So if a nation doesn't legally recognise minors as 'citizens', rather than just as 'nationals', it would have to bar them from carrying guns anywhere within that nation even under circumstances where that carriage would otherwise currently be perfectly legal? The passage of a resolution requiring that restriction of rights would become yet another barrier in the way of Bears Armed proper ever re-joining this organistion...
"Opposed."

should minors be allowed to possess deadly firearms?

For the purposes of this proposal, separate clauses for minors were deemed unnecessary, and I eventually felt that the same restrictions could work for all civilians, regardless of age.

[Separatist Peoples]

"So if a nation doesn't legally recognise minors as 'citizens', rather than just as 'nationals', it would have to bar them from carrying guns anywhere within that nation even under circumstances where that carriage would otherwise currently be perfectly legal? The passage of a resolution requiring that restriction of rights would become yet another barrier in the way of Bears Armed proper ever re-joining this organistion...
"Opposed."

should minors be allowed to possess deadly firearms?

Why not? If a member nation wants to allow minors to own deadly firearms, what is to say its bad?

OOC: I owned, in all but legal name, my very own .58 caliber rifle since I was about 14, and I didn't kill anybody.