[SUBMITTED] Firearms and Intl Travel

[Moronist Decisions]

Section II, subclause 1 - I would prefer to see Ms. Harper's wording restored, please.

b. Notify any and all relevant security, such as airline security, national security, security traveling with them, customs and borders, etc., that they possess firearms in their luggage;

All security? So every single security agent I bump into? I would probably devolve this to national governments, viz:

Notify all security personnel as designated by the nation of departure and the nation of arrival.

c. Ensure that they are in conformance with any and all relevant national and/or international laws regarding firearms;

What nations? I would prefer to say "all international laws as well as the laws of the nation of departure and the nation of arrival"

3. Authorized security personnel, including but not limited to airline security, personal bodyguards for high-level government officials, anti-terrorism agents, and captains and crews of boats;

Authorized by whom? Can I send to a neighboring country "authorized security personnel" guns blazing? (I understand the purpose, but figured it needed clarification. I suggest that both nations need to authorize this.

Looks like a decent start, but some of the little niggles need to be worked out.

Joe Smyslow

[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 or in carry-on luggage;

The phrase underline could be gobbled up into a single word "internationally".

[Bears Armed]

Wouldn't the 'Sky Marshals' whom some nations deploy for security against hijackers usually be civilians rather than military personnel, and therefore be restricted by this proposed resolution even in cases where the nation of departure & nation of arrival were both willing to let them travel armed? For that matter, what about cases where the nations concerned would consent to having members of the plane's actual crew armed for security purposes?

[Cerberion]

Overall I can not find much to object to in this proposal. I am mildly concerned that nations which may be transitional stops between departure and arrival may not be fully dealt with.

If the passenger boards at nation A, changes planes in nation B, and travles on to Nation C (their destination), how would this act affect nation B who may have a complete ban on firearms on their soil?

I'm also mildly concerned that this only affects firearms, and it is therefor not extended to rail guns or laser weapons.

To state openly Cerberion is not in favor of any gun control within it's borders for it's own citizens. We do not however allow them to travel abroad with weaponry of any kind, or allow members of other nations to possess weapons on Cerberion territory.

The Holy Cermon T. Dawg
Voice of the House of Cerberion
Secundus of the 24th Day Dawgists

[Darenjo]

Wouldn't the 'Sky Marshals' whom some nations deploy for security against hijackers usually be civilians rather than military personnel, and therefore be restricted by this proposed resolution even in cases where the nation of departure & nation of arrival were both willing to let them travel armed? For that matter, what about cases where the nations concerned would consent to having members of the plane's actual crew armed for security purposes?

I'm pretty sure that the "Sky Marshals" are allowed to have firearms, seeing as the proposal EXEMPTS them from the restrictions. (I assume that "Sky Marshals" would fall under "anti-terrorism agents". Apparently so do you.)

To your point about aircraft crews, I can add that in if you wish.

Overall I can not find much to object to in this proposal. I am mildly concerned that nations which may be transitional stops between departure and arrival may not be fully dealt with.

If the passenger boards at nation A, changes planes in nation B, and travles on to Nation C (their destination), how would this act affect nation B who may have a complete ban on firearms on their soil?

I'm also mildly concerned that this only affects firearms, and it is therefor not extended to rail guns or laser weapons.

To state openly Cerberion is not in favor of any gun control within it's borders for it's own citizens. We do not however allow them to travel abroad with weaponry of any kind, or allow members of other nations to possess weapons on Cerberion territory.

The Holy Cermon T. Dawg
Voice of the House of Cerberion
Secundus of the 24th Day Dawgists

To your first point, then said passenger would not be able to have any firearms with him/her at all during the trip, as Nation B has outlawed civilian usage of firearms, unless, of course, said passenger is on the list of exempted people detailed in Section IV.

OOC: I intended for "firearms" (and sorry for the OOC reply but it's the only way I can work this out in my head) to cover all types of gun-like weapons. The term "gun" was too close to RL usage, so I used "firearms" to include FT weapons as well, such as lasers/plasma weapons. I'm not aware that any nation RPs with a handheld rail gun though...

[Cerberion]

Overall I can not find much to object to in this proposal. I am mildly concerned that nations which may be transitional stops between departure and arrival may not be fully dealt with.

If the passenger boards at nation A, changes planes in nation B, and travles on to Nation C (their destination), how would this act affect nation B who may have a complete ban on firearms on their soil?

I'm also mildly concerned that this only affects firearms, and it is therefor not extended to rail guns or laser weapons.

To state openly Cerberion is not in favor of any gun control within it's borders for it's own citizens. We do not however allow them to travel abroad with weaponry of any kind, or allow members of other nations to possess weapons on Cerberion territory.

The Holy Cermon T. Dawg
Voice of the House of Cerberion
Secundus of the 24th Day Dawgists

To your first point, then said passenger would not be able to have any firearms with him/her at all during the trip, as Nation B has outlawed civilian usage of firearms, unless, of course, said passenger is on the list of exempted people detailed in Section IV.

OOC: I intended for "firearms" (and sorry for the OOC reply but it's the only way I can work this out in my head) to cover all types of gun-like weapons. The term "gun" was too close to RL usage, so I used "firearms" to include FT weapons as well, such as lasers/plasma weapons. I'm not aware that any nation RPs with a handheld rail gun though...

We thank you for your kind clarification of my first point.

OOC: Is there already a definition of firearm and the weapons it contains within it's definition? To me a firearm relies entirely on a propellant such as gun powder, cordite, or some other explosive medium. As for hand held rail guns, it's only a matter of time :)

The Holy Cermon T. Dawg
Voice of the House of Cerberion
Secundus of the 24th Day Dawgists

[Darenjo]

To your first point, then said passenger would not be able to have any firearms with him/her at all during the trip, as Nation B has outlawed civilian usage of firearms, unless, of course, said passenger is on the list of exempted people detailed in Section IV.

OOC: I intended for "firearms" (and sorry for the OOC reply but it's the only way I can work this out in my head) to cover all types of gun-like weapons. The term "gun" was too close to RL usage, so I used "firearms" to include FT weapons as well, such as lasers/plasma weapons. I'm not aware that any nation RPs with a handheld rail gun though...

We thank you for your kind clarification of my first point.

OOC: Is there already a definition of firearm and the weapons it contains within it's definition? To me a firearm relies entirely on a propellant such as gun powder, cordite, or some other explosive medium. As for hand held rail guns, it's only a matter of time

The Holy Cermon T. Dawg
Voice of the House of Cerberion
Secundus of the 24th Day Dawgists

OOC: Hmm...that's a good question...I need time to think on that one.

[Yakana]

OOC: I intended for "firearms" (and sorry for the OOC reply but it's the only way I can work this out in my head) to cover all types of gun-like weapons. The term "gun" was too close to RL usage, so I used "firearms" to include FT weapons as well, such as lasers/plasma weapons. I'm not aware that any nation RPs with a handheld rail gun though...

Couldn't this be cleared up by defining any weapon for the sake of this document that discharges a gun?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I intended for "firearms" (and sorry for the OOC reply but it's the only way I can work this out in my head) to cover all types of gun-like weapons. The term "gun" was too close to RL usage, so I used "firearms" to include FT weapons as well, such as lasers/plasma weapons. I'm not aware that any nation RPs with a handheld rail gun though...

Couldn't this be cleared up by defining any weapon for the sake of this document that discharges a gun?

A weapon that discharges a gun, huh? Sounds like one of them Russian dolls that fit inside each other.

[Darenjo]

Couldn't this be cleared up by defining any weapon for the sake of this document that discharges a gun?

A weapon that discharges a gun, huh? Sounds like one of them Russian dolls that fit inside each other.

I think he meant that any weapon that discharges would he considered a gun.

It's interesting, but I'm not sure if it would work.

[Yakana]

A weapon that discharges a gun, huh? Sounds like one of them Russian dolls that fit inside each other.

I think he meant that any weapon that discharges would he considered a gun.

Haha yes. My apologises. Should be stated "[...]that discharges is a gun".

It's interesting, but I'm not sure if it would work.

I guess that a cannon would 'discharge' but we wouldn't want those on a plane either. :/

[Separatist Peoples]

I think he meant that any weapon that discharges would he considered a gun.

Haha yes. My apologises. Should be stated "[...]that discharges is a gun".

It's interesting, but I'm not sure if it would work.

I guess that a cannon would 'discharge' but we wouldn't want those on a plane either. :/

I would love to see somebody try to get a cannon onto an aircraft without having to pay through the nose on overweight luggage fees.

[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 or in carry-on luggage;

I hope the honoured ambassador from Darenjo did not miss our previous comment but where underlined the phrase could be simplified to a single word "internationally", therefore making the clause look like this, along with wordiness improvements:

1. No individual may carry firearm(s) on their person or in non-check-in luggage, when traveling internationally;

and

2. Individuals must pack firearms in their check-in luggage when traveling internationally, but only if they 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 hope that it will work towards making the draft sound better.

[Cerberion]

I made a similar suggestion in a different proposal but perhaps something like this could be added.

For the purpose of this resolution a firearm is defined as a device which discharges either a projectile or burst of directed energy and is primarily designed for the function of maiming or fatally wounding a multi-cellular biological organism.


That's the best catchall I can come up with.

[Bears Armed]

Wouldn't the 'Sky Marshals' whom some nations deploy for security against hijackers usually be civilians rather than military personnel, and therefore be restricted by this proposed resolution even in cases where the nation of departure & nation of arrival were both willing to let them travel armed? For that matter, what about cases where the nations concerned would consent to having members of the plane's actual crew armed for security purposes?

I'm pretty sure that the "Sky Marshals" are allowed to have firearms, seeing as the proposal EXEMPTS them from the restrictions. (I assume that "Sky Marshals" would fall under "anti-terrorism agents". Apparently so do you.)

To your point about aircraft crews, I can add that in if you wish.

Yes, please.
(Oops! I'd missed the exemption that would already cover Sky Marshals...)

OOC: I intended for "firearms" (and sorry for the OOC reply but it's the only way I can work this out in my head) to cover all types of gun-like weapons. The term "gun" was too close to RL usage, so I used "firearms" to include FT weapons as well, such as lasers/plasma weapons. I'm not aware that any nation RPs with a handheld rail gun though...

OOC: I am aware of a nation that does so, although they actually call those weapons "linear muskets" instead, but as far as I know they don't have anything to do with the WA...

[Darenjo]

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 or in carry-on luggage;

I hope the honoured ambassador from Darenjo did not miss our previous comment but where underlined the phrase could be simplified to a single word "internationally", therefore making the clause look like this, along with wordiness improvements:

1. No individual may carry firearm(s) on their person or in non-check-in luggage, when traveling internationally;

and

2. Individuals must pack firearms in their check-in luggage when traveling internationally, but only if they 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 hope that it will work towards making the draft sound better.

Fixed.
I kept the term "carry-on luggage" because, at least, in Darenjo, all luggage must be checked in, but only some types (like purses or satchels or laptop cases) are allowed to stay with the passenger.

I'm pretty sure that the "Sky Marshals" are allowed to have firearms, seeing as the proposal EXEMPTS them from the restrictions. (I assume that "Sky Marshals" would fall under "anti-terrorism agents". Apparently so do you.)

To your point about aircraft crews, I can add that in if you wish.

Yes, please.
(Oops! I'd missed the exemption that would already cover Sky Marshals...)

And done.

By the way, any thoughts on Section III?

[Darenjo]

Section II, subclause 1 - I would prefer to see Ms. Harper's wording restored, please.

b. Notify any and all relevant security, such as airline security, national security, security traveling with them, customs and borders, etc., that they possess firearms in their luggage;

All security? So every single security agent I bump into? I would probably devolve this to national governments, viz:

Notify all security personnel as designated by the nation of departure and the nation of arrival.

c. Ensure that they are in conformance with any and all relevant national and/or international laws regarding firearms;

What nations? I would prefer to say "all international laws as well as the laws of the nation of departure and the nation of arrival"

3. Authorized security personnel, including but not limited to airline security, personal bodyguards for high-level government officials, anti-terrorism agents, and captains and crews of boats;

Authorized by whom? Can I send to a neighboring country "authorized security personnel" guns blazing? (I understand the purpose, but figured it needed clarification. I suggest that both nations need to authorize this.

Looks like a decent start, but some of the little niggles need to be worked out.

Joe Smyslow

For the first one, would the term "security apparatuses" work?

For the second one, it says "relevant" national laws, so if you're not going to enter a nation its gun laws, logically, wouldn't matter in regards to your trip.

For the third one, I'll do that.

[Linux and the X]

should minors be allowed to possess deadly firearms?

The entire concept of minority is bullshit, so yes, those you call "minors" should be allowed to possess whatever firearms they want, deadly or not.

[Darenjo]

should minors be allowed to possess deadly firearms?

The entire concept of minority is bullshit, so yes, those you call "minors" should be allowed to possess whatever firearms they want, deadly or not.

Eh, doesn't matter with the proposal anymore. All the stuff about minors has been taken out.

[Yakana]

b. Notify any and all relevant security, such as airline security, national security, security traveling with them, customs and borders, etc., that they possess firearms in their luggage;

Shouldn't citizens be required to notify check-in agents prior to handing over their bag? Furthermore it should then be the airlines responsibility to notify appropriate law enforcement/security about the checked weapon, not the person. Going up to each security officer and saying "I haz gun!" won't turn out great.

[Darenjo]

b. Notify any and all relevant security, such as airline security, national security, security traveling with them, customs and borders, etc., that they possess firearms in their luggage;

Shouldn't citizens be required to notify check-in agents prior to handing over their bag? Furthermore it should then be the airlines responsibility to notify appropriate law enforcement/security about the checked weapon, not the person. Going up to each security officer and saying "I haz gun!" won't turn out great.

Yeah having notice prior to would be good...

I don't think it's legal to make airlines notify all the others - the "Gun Control" category, as said in Ard's ruling made recently on the proposal (OOC: go back a page) is for the regulation of individual ownership of guns.

So - prior notification: good (OOC: I'll add it in when I'm not on my iPod and on a computer instead); making airlines tell nations about guns on planes - not so good;

[Bears Armed]

[

Yes, please.
(Oops! I'd missed the exemption that would already cover Sky Marshals...)

And done.

"Hr'rmm, I see that that clause is actually "including, but not limited to" the listed categories of people, so that others could be allowed as well by the nations involved, but maybeso it would be simpler to replace "boats and airplanes" with "vehicles" so that other forms of international transport -- from stagecoaches to starships, for example -- would explicitly be covered too?
"Also, could those captains and crews be allowed weaponry for repelling not only terrorists but pirates as well?"


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

[Cobdenia]

The standard system that Cobdenia uses for firearms aboard ship is that their is an armoury aboard most merchant ships containing several firearms (usually enough revolvers for the officers, but occasionally this includes rifles) to which only the captain has access and from which he can issue weapons to personnel in case of piracy, mutiny and, on cruise ships, fat people wearing spandex.

I'm also not certain this is particularly necessary as a resolution - if your country allows firearms on planes but the nation you arrive at doesn't, it rather strikes me as your own silly fault if you end up in prison. If it's the other way around, well, no worries as there'll be no guns allowed on the 'plane in the first place.

Perhaps it would be best to examine the international transport of hazardous materials more broadly (I have realised that Resolution 34 doesn't cover this) and regulate on such?

[Darenjo]

[

And done.

"Hr'rmm, I see that that clause is actually "including, but not limited to" the listed categories of people, so that others could be allowed as well by the nations involved, but maybeso it would be simpler to replace "boats and airplanes" with "vehicles" so that other forms of international transport -- from stagecoaches to starships, for example -- would explicitly be covered too?
"Also, could those captains and crews be allowed weaponry for repelling not only terrorists but pirates as well?"


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

Great idea. Thanks.

EDIT: Changing it to just "vehicles" would exempt everyone in a car. I can't think of something of the top of my head, so I'll just have to think of stuff. If you think of anything, let me know.

Okay, so with Yakana's idea, I'll try adding "any and all security agents directly involved with the trip, such as [blah blah blah]". We'll see how that works out.

@Cobdenia: On the other hand, we don't really want any tourists-gone-terrorists at customs, do we now? Also, I doubt firearms would be classified as a "hazardous material".

On the note of firearms, guess what:
WE DON'T HAVE TO INCLUDE A DEFINITION!!!

I asked the Mods about it, and Ard told me that, due to the "good faith" rule and the Reasonable Nation Theory, we shouldn't have to add a definition to "firearm." I am very, very happy.

Ard's Response:

Since it's in the category name, "gun" covers whatever each WA nation understands by the term "gun". So, given that WA members are supposed to interpret WA resolutions in good faith, you're probably going to cover more with "gun" than with any more detailed definition. "Firearm" seems general enough to convey that you mean weapons that aren't primarily intended to slice or stab.

There will always be nations that will have their legislatures "define the terms 'gun' and 'firearm', as used in WA#Whatever, to mean 'strawberry' ". There are also always going to be nations that vote against a given proposal because in their opinion it doesn't define a term adequately. At some stage, you just have to cut your losses and go with what will make sense to a reasonable reader/nation.

EDIT: Also, I won't have internet access for the next week or so; just a heads-up.

[Cerberion]

I'm pleased about the "gun" clarification. Moving to that is definately more confortable for my nation as firearm was so very specific.

I think overall I'm going to support this when it hits the floor. I certainly can't think of a good reason to oppose it.