NSG Senate Coffee Shop [NSG Senate]

[Yanalia]

Also for your consideration, senators:

Internal Security Bill (2013)
Co-drafted by: Costa Alegria and Wolfmanne || Urgency: High
Co-sponsors: Progressive-Conservative Party(?), Britcan (TR, possible)

Preamble

The security of our nation is a top priority for the government and the Senate. Election to the Senate gives you the responsibility to ensure that you can hold the government to account in ensuring the safety and security of our people. However, it is not the responsibility of individual political parties to act as the judge, jury and executioner, for only multiple political parties and not just one can hold the government to account. Furthermore, we recognise that whether you support or oppose the Right to Bear Arms, in a time such as this, we need to reach a compromise until specific firearms legislation promoting or restricting the ownership of guns. In order to further the government's ability to ensure the security of this nation, we see the need for the creation of a government organisation to do just that, as evidenced by the 1st Festival of Republic, where armed right-wing paramilitaries are attempting to agitate left-wing paramilitaries into destabilising the nation.

Article 1: On Paramilitaries
1a: All paramilitaries, with the exception of those under the auspices of government agencies, are to be formally disbanded, including those under political parties and those otherwise independent from them, such as vigilante groups or citizen militias.
1b: All paramilitaries are to surrender their arms, munitions and vehicles with the potential of causing lethal harm to others to the Ministry of Justice, who shall issue disarmament warrants to law enforcement agencies.
1c: Paramilitaries that fail to disarm or be disbanded are to be designated as terrorist organisations. If they are under the auspices of a parent organisation, such as a political party, then they are to dissuade links from that paramilitary or they to shall be considered a terrorist organisation.
1d: The creation of new paramilitaries, vigilante groups and citizen militias is banned and all new paramilitaries are to be recognised as terrorist organisations. Any organisations, such as political parties, that endorse new paramilitaries, vigilante groups and citizen militias are also to be designated as terrorist organisations.
1e: Paramilitaries or individual members who fail to disarm may be arrested and trialed on the charges of refusal to disarm, illegal promotion of paramilitary activities and terrorism.

Article 2: The Gendarmerie
1a: In light of potential civil war and for use in a time of a national or regional emergency the Aurentinian Gendarmerie is to be established under the auspices of the Ministry of the Interior.
1b: The Aurentinian Gendarmerie is shall provide security of public institutions, ministries and courts, embassies and consulates international airports, national museums, nuclear power plants, riots & crowds control, publicly crowded events and our national borders.
1c: The Aurentinian Gendarmerie shall conduct high risk arrests, disaster response, SWAT operations, the suppression of internal armed conflicts and riots, the policing of areas without a sufficient amount of civilian police, to support local constabularies and counter-terrorism operations.
1d: The Gendarmerie shall be organised into a series of Brigades consisting of a number of Regiments from different regions.
1e: In times of war, the Gendarmerie or individual Brigades and Regiments may be drafted by the National Defense Force to provide rear security, police the military and for national defense against external threats, based upon the threat to national security this war may have. Gendarmes are to be considered a part of the military and not civilians, however whilst the Aurentinian Gendarmerie is considered to be a military organisation, it does not come under the National Defense Force but the Ministry of the Interior, unless they have been drafted.
1f: Gendarmes shall have policing powers as established by the Policing and Law Enforcement Act.


Article 3: Terrorist Organisations
3a: A terrorist organisation shall be defined as an armed paramilitary, vigilante or citizen militias that have refused to be disarmed in accordance with the paramilitary ban in Articles 1a.
3b: Herein also extends the definition of terrorist organisations as groups that act in a violent manner towards the state and its citizens and those that commit acts of violence against the state and its citizens for the advancement of an agenda.

When you say surrender "their" arms, are you referring to paramilitaries whose member bring their own firearms? Or just those who own the weapons themselves?

Also the bill should ban vehicles with mounted weaponry for private ownership to avoid the loophole earlier discussed.

[Maklohi Vai]

Ok, a couple more questions:
1. Why does the NSSRA control the space program and not the ministry?
2. Why use IQ as a scale of intelligence? It's more a scale of learning ability, which is different than intelligence.
3. Why does the NSSRA fund research programs and not the ministry, considering that the ministry realistically has more money than a mere agency?

1. The NSSRA doesn't control the space program, it organizes it. It's only there to make sure that the Ministry keeps the nation's best interests when dictating space travel.
2. IQ was just the first thing that came to my mind. If you had a better suggestion, I would be happy to change it.
3. That's actually a fair point I didn't think about. I'll take that off the list of duties.

1. Ok, sounds good
2. I would suggest just using the term "intelligence." The phrase could become: "HOPING Increasing emphasis on science will inspire an increased national intelligence, and give future generations greater opportunities in education and career choice,"
3. Ok, thanks.

Other than that, I like it very much. I'll have to think it over a bit more before I decide whether or not I want to be a sponsor.

[Costa Alegria]

When you say surrender "their" arms, are you referring to paramilitaries whose member bring their own firearms? Or just those who own the weapons themselves?

Most likely both. This would take advantage of the current lack of finalised gun legislation to take the weapons off those that do not deserve to have them anymore. I could have it clarified some time whenever my co-draftee is around (I only changed the titled and added in the definitions of terrorist organisations).

Also the bill should ban vehicles with mounted weaponry for private ownership to avoid the loophole earlier discussed.

Will do.

[The Treorai]

National Space and Scientific Research Agency Establishment Act
An act to found a government agency responsible for scientific exploration and organization.
DRAFT 6

Drafted By Sen. Treorai
Sponsored by:
Sen. Yanalia
Sen. Pokarnia

BELIEVING That intelligence and learning are some of the most important qualities of human society,

WORRIED By the fact that no official state administration exists who's purpose is to pursue the advancement of scientific endeavors outside of the executive branch of government,

FURTHER BELIEVING That an independent scientific authority will provide an unbiased way to enforce ethical scientific research laws,

HOPING Increasing emphasis on science will inspire a higher national intelligence, and give future generations greater opportunities in education and career choice,

ESTABLISHES The National Space and Scientific Research Agency (NSSRA),

FURTHER ESTABLISHES The position of Director of the NSSRA, to run the operations of the agency,

DEFINES The duties of the NSSRA as;
1. To manage state sponsored scientific experimentation,
2. To organize our national space program,
3. To enforce the Code of Ethical Scientific Research,
4. To promote ethical scientific research,
5. To serve as our nation's primary scientific institution, outside of the executive branch of government,

FURTHER DEFINES The Code of Ethical Scientific Research as a set of laws that are as follows;
1. No human may be killed in the process of a scientific experiment,
2. No human may be experimented upon without without prior consent
(a) If the subject is not of the appropriate age of consent, his/her Legal Guardian must first give consent, as well as the subject,
(b) No pain may be inflicted upon the subject, unless said pain was explicitly outlined prior to consent,
3. Experiments done upon animals should not result in mutilation, or excessive, long lasting pain to the subject,
4. No experiments shall be done to deceased humans, unless the subject has consented to donate their body to scientific research prior to death,
(a) If the subject was underage at the time of death, his/her Legal Guardian may consent to donate the subject's body to scientific research,
5. Researchers may not profit from their research, unless the research was funded and commissioned by a privately owned operation,
(a) Defines "privately owned operation" as any economic entity outside of our nation's government,
6. Any research in violation of this code is henceforth considered unethical and illegal,

HEREBY Considers the NSSRA second only to the Ministry of Research and Astronomy in scientific authority,

REQUIRES All scientific research centers in our nation to register themselves with the NSSRA,

GRANTS The NSSRA the ability to inspect any site in our nation that is carrying out scientific research,

FURTHER GRANTS The NSSRA the power to mandate a police investigation of those suspected of violating the Code of Ethical Scientific Research.

[Yanalia]

When you say surrender "their" arms, are you referring to paramilitaries whose member bring their own firearms? Or just those who own the weapons themselves?

Most likely both. This would take advantage of the current lack of finalised gun legislation to take the weapons off those that do not deserve to have them anymore. I could have it clarified some time whenever my co-draftee is around (I only changed the titled and added in the definitions of terrorist organisations).

Also the bill should ban vehicles with mounted weaponry for private ownership to avoid the loophole earlier discussed.

Will do.

I would find it difficult to support the bill if it disarms all members of paramilitaries from their privately owned weapons. I would appreciate it if that was kept in the gun control bill.

[Costa Alegria]

I would find it difficult to support the bill if it disarms all members of paramilitaries from their privately owned weapons. I would appreciate it if that was kept in the gun control bill.

This would likely pass after the gun control bill. It really will only punish those that actively resist. I'll talk with my co-draftee about having exemptions made for licenced firearms.

[Yanalia]

I would find it difficult to support the bill if it disarms all members of paramilitaries from their privately owned weapons. I would appreciate it if that was kept in the gun control bill.

This would likely pass after the gun control bill. It really will only punish those that actively resist. I'll talk with my co-draftee about having exemptions made for licenced firearms.

And if the gun control bill does not pass?

[Costa Alegria]

And if the gun control bill does not pass?

Then it would still apply. No rights are being taken away if they don't exist.

[The Treorai]

And if the gun control bill does not pass?

Then it would still apply. No rights are being taken away if they don't exist.

Well, actually, Before the Firearms Bill even comes up in queue, my Limiting Legislation Act is there... so if that passes people wil have the right to bear arms.

[Yanalia]

And if the gun control bill does not pass?

Then it would still apply. No rights are being taken away if they don't exist.

I'm a little confused. To what does "they" refer?

Anyway, as it stands, the Internal Security Act would remove the private weapons of citizens. This is the only part of the bill with which I have issue. I don't see why it needs to be in there at all.

[Costa Alegria]

I'm a little confused. To what does "they" refer?

The right to bear arms. That doesn't exist yet.

Anyway, as it stands, the Internal Security Act would remove the private weapons of citizens. This is the only part of the bill with which I have issue. I don't see why it needs to be in there at all.

Because that's the whole point of disarming paramilitaries? This would only apply to members of paramilitaries, who have foregone their rights to have said arms. If you used a car in a manner which was a threat to public safety, would you be against the state taking it off you or your rights to use it?

[The Treorai]

I'm a little confused. To what does "they" refer?

The right to bear arms. That doesn't exist yet.

Anyway, as it stands, the Internal Security Act would remove the private weapons of citizens. This is the only part of the bill with which I have issue. I don't see why it needs to be in there at all.

Because that's the whole point of disarming paramilitaries? This would only apply to members of paramilitaries, who have foregone their rights to have said arms. If you used a car in a manner which was a threat to public safety, would you be against the state taking it off you or your rights to use it?

However, they have broken no laws yet. Untill this bill passes, the act of being in a paramilitary organization is completely legal. So they have done nothing wrong yet, therefore you can't take away their rights for doing something legal.

[Yanalia]

I'm a little confused. To what does "they" refer?

The right to bear arms. That doesn't exist yet.

Anyway, as it stands, the Internal Security Act would remove the private weapons of citizens. This is the only part of the bill with which I have issue. I don't see why it needs to be in there at all.

Because that's the whole point of disarming paramilitaries? This would only apply to members of paramilitaries, who have foregone their rights to have said arms. If you used a car in a manner which was a threat to public safety, would you be against the state taking it off you or your rights to use it?

Paramilitaries were legal prior to the entering of this bill. Private citizens were doing nothing illegal by joining them. If a private citizen joins a paramilitary after this bill's passage, by all means, confiscate his weaponry. Until then, they have done nothing illegal. The paramilitaries need to be disbanded because they will undoubtedly lead to violence, but we should not assume that all current members of them are already criminals.

[Costa Alegria]

Well, actually, Before the Firearms Bill even comes up in queue, my Limiting Legislation Act is there... so if that passes people wil have the right to bear arms.

Within restrictions, which the Firearms Bill possesses.

[Greater Pokarnia]

The right to bear arms. That doesn't exist yet.

Rights exist by default. The right to bear arms does exist because there is no law prohibiting it yet. Citizens have the right to do anything that does not break the law.

[The Republic of Lanos]

The restrictions in the Firearms bill is too strict. We need to compromise on the whole thing lest the opposition fails to trust us. And before you go "We're not compromising!", it's well within your right to do so but if they control the government and refuse to listen to us, then we will suffer the same treatment we are giving them.

[Costa Alegria]

Rights exist by default. The right to bear arms does exist because there is no law prohibiting it yet. Citizens have the right to do anything that does not break the law.

Yet there is no law permitting citizens to own firearms. Therefore, that right does not exist. Now, are we going to critique this Internal Security Act or devolve into yet another fruitless debate on gun control?

[The Treorai]

Rights exist by default. The right to bear arms does exist because there is no law prohibiting it yet. Citizens have the right to do anything that does not break the law.

Yet there is no law permitting citizens to own firearms. Therefore, that right does not exist. Now, are we going to critique this Internal Security Act or devolve into yet another fruitless debate on gun control?

Your bill does provoke a debate on gun control because of its content.

[Costa Alegria]

Your bill does provoke a debate on gun control because of its content.

And in the humble opinion of this senator, I think it's sometimes necessary to trod on a few toes to achieve something which will be beneficial for this nation. You cannot make an omlete without breaking a few eggs, now can you senator?

No one is suggesting that we ban all firearms or anything of the sort. But paramilitaries possess a real problem to the state and this will hopefully rectify that problem.

[Yanalia]

The right to bear arms. That doesn't exist yet.



Because that's the whole point of disarming paramilitaries? This would only apply to members of paramilitaries, who have foregone their rights to have said arms. If you used a car in a manner which was a threat to public safety, would you be against the state taking it off you or your rights to use it?

Paramilitaries were legal prior to the entering of this bill. Private citizens were doing nothing illegal by joining them. If a private citizen joins a paramilitary after this bill's passage, by all means, confiscate his weaponry. Until then, they have done nothing illegal. The paramilitaries need to be disbanded because they will undoubtedly lead to violence, but we should not assume that all current members of them are already criminals.

[The Treorai]

Your bill does provoke a debate on gun control because of its content.

And in the humble opinion of this senator, I think it's sometimes necessary to trod on a few toes to achieve something which will be beneficial for this nation. You cannot make an omlete without breaking a few eggs, now can you senator?

No one is suggesting that we ban all firearms or anything of the sort. But paramilitaries possess a real problem to the state and this will hopefully rectify that problem.

Not when the eggs are actually freedoms you are forcing people to give up for doing something that was perfectly legal before this bill.

[Costa Alegria]

Paramilitaries were legal prior to the entering of this bill.

Unless you can show me a specific piece of legislation stating that political paramilitaries are legal (like the right to own arms), then you may have a point.

The paramilitaries need to be disbanded because they will undoubtedly lead to violence, but we should not assume that all current members of them are already criminals.

We're not. They're criminals after this bill passes.

The restrictions in the Firearms bill is too strict. We need to compromise on the whole thing lest the opposition fails to trust us. And before you go "We're not compromising!", it's well within your right to do so but if they control the government and refuse to listen to us, then we will suffer the same treatment we are giving them.

Get with the program Lanos. We're not talking about the firearms bill.

[The Republic of Lanos]

Get with the program Lanos. We're not talking about the firearms bill.

This is the place to discuss legislation in queue.

[Geilinor]

Get with the program Lanos. We're not talking about the firearms bill.

This is the place to discuss legislation in queue.

The discussion is on the Internal Security Act, which bans paramilitaries.

[Yanalia]

Paramilitaries were legal prior to the entering of this bill.

Unless you can show me a specific piece of legislation stating that political paramilitaries are legal (like the right to own arms), then you may have a point.

The paramilitaries need to be disbanded because they will undoubtedly lead to violence, but we should not assume that all current members of them are already criminals.

We're not. They're criminals after this bill passes.

The restrictions in the Firearms bill is too strict. We need to compromise on the whole thing lest the opposition fails to trust us. And before you go "We're not compromising!", it's well within your right to do so but if they control the government and refuse to listen to us, then we will suffer the same treatment we are giving them.

Get with the program Lanos. We're not talking about the firearms bill.

They were not illegal; therefore, they were legal. Citizens can do anything the law does not forbid. If private citizens currently in paramilitary groups are willing to renounce their membership upon the passage of this bill, they should be able to keep their private small arms. They have done nothing illegal.