[DRAFT] Civilian Weapons Act

[Chester Pearson]

"CIVILIAN FIREARMS ACT"
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Chester Pearson

The World Assembly,

BELIEVING that firearm ownership is and always should be a matter of national purview,

THUS SEEKING to end this silly debate once and for all,

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY HEREBY DECREES:

1. The definition of the term "firearm" shall be left up to individual nations to define,
   
   
2. The decision to make firearm possession mandatory shall be left up to members individual governments,
   
   
3. The decision to allow citizens to carry firearms shall be left up to individual nations within the confines of current and future World Assembly legislation,
   
   
4. Requires that nations whom permit their citizens to carry firearms have a registry in place to ensure the accountability of such firearms readily accessible by law enforcement; Furthermore citizens that carry firearms shall be fully qualified to carry and use such firearms,
   
   
5. Member nations are encouraged to work more closely together on matters of illegal firearms usage to hopefully one day put a stop to it.

Co-Authored by Grays Harbor

"CIVILIAN WEAPONS ACT"
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Chester Pearson

The World Assembly,

BELIEVING that firearm ownership is and always should be a matter of national purview,

NOTING the recent spat of terrible resolutions that try to make firearm ownership an international issue,

EXHAUSTED by the endless debate and bickering,

THUS SEEKING to end this insanity once and for all,

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY HEREBY DECREES:

1. The definition of the term "firearm" shall be left up to individual nations to define,
   
   
2. Member nations shall be free to legislate on the matter of firearms ownership as they see fit subject to current international law,
   
   
3. Member nations that allow their citizens to possess firearms shall ensure legitimate recognized law enforcement have a registry in place, and that owners are qualified and licensed to possess such firearms,
   
   
4. Member nations are encouraged to work more closely together on matters of illegal firearms smuggling to hopefully one day put a stop to it.

Alright ladies and gentle beings....... Here it is. Hopefully this can settle the matter once and for all so we don't have another 42 page debacle and 3 more wasted days of voting time.

Fire at will....

Edit: Struck out what was clause two, and have replaced it with "The decision to make firearm possession mandatory shall be left up to members individual governments,"

[Point Breeze]

Illegal for optionality? The last "Encourages" clause applies to all nations, but is that enough to make it legal?

[Chester Pearson]

Illegal for optionality? The last "Encourages" clause applies to all nations, but is that enough to make it legal?

Clause 3 is not optional, and Encourage has always been good enough for mild....

[Point Breeze]

It doesnt apply to nations that forbif private ownership of firearms. Optional.

If one encourages clause is enough. then godspeed.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Point Breeze, what are you talking about? The mods have already clearly established that mild proposals aren't illegal for optionality.

For purposes of "doing something", URGES, ENCOURAGES, RECOMMENDS, SUGGESTS et al are acceptable actions in proposals.

This proposal might be illegal for different reasons - the Blocker rules plus Fris's words at the UN/WA changeover seem to indicate that taking out an entire category isn't allowed, even in an otherwise legal proposal - but in more than one thread you're banging on this "mild = optional" drum, and I'm really not convinced.

[Point Breeze]

OOC: Point Breeze, what are you talking about? The mods have already clearly established that mild proposals aren't illegal for optionality.

For purposes of "doing something", URGES, ENCOURAGES, RECOMMENDS, SUGGESTS et al are acceptable actions in proposals.

This proposal might be illegal for different reasons - the Blocker rules plus Fris's words at the UN/WA changeover seem to indicate that taking out an entire category isn't allowed, even in an otherwise legal proposal - but in more than one thread you're banging on this "mild = optional" drum, and I'm really not convinced.

In that case, I remove my earlier objections. I wasn't trying to condemn all "mild" proposals, I was just concerned about how little this proposal does for nations that don't allow citizens to own firearms.

[Chester Pearson]

OOC: Point Breeze, what are you talking about? The mods have already clearly established that mild proposals aren't illegal for optionality.

For purposes of "doing something", URGES, ENCOURAGES, RECOMMENDS, SUGGESTS et al are acceptable actions in proposals.

This proposal might be illegal for different reasons - the Blocker rules plus Fris's words at the UN/WA changeover seem to indicate that taking out an entire category isn't allowed, even in an otherwise legal proposal - but in more than one thread you're banging on this "mild = optional" drum, and I'm really not convinced.

It's not taking out the entire category.... It is simply reaffirming that gun ownership is not an international issue.

[Alqania]

OOC: Point Breeze, what are you talking about? The mods have already clearly established that mild proposals aren't illegal for optionality.

This proposal might be illegal for different reasons - the Blocker rules plus Fris's words at the UN/WA changeover seem to indicate that taking out an entire category isn't allowed, even in an otherwise legal proposal - but in more than one thread you're banging on this "mild = optional" drum, and I'm really not convinced.

It's not taking out the entire category.... It is simply reaffirming that gun ownership is not an international issue.

"Clause 2 would block the 'Gun Control' category", Princess Christine observed.

[Bears Armed]

This proposal might be illegal for different reasons - the Blocker rules plus Fris's words at the UN/WA changeover seem to indicate that taking out an entire category isn't allowed, even in an otherwise legal proposal

OOC: They wouldn't even let me block a large portion of a category with one of my proposals ('Freedom from Want')... even though a verry recently-repealed resolution in that same catgeory had had a comparably wide scope and therefore had made further legislation in that category just as diffcult while it lasted as my proposal would have done.

[Herzil]

In Theory its a rather nice proposal.

It does have some silly issues:

A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

First how is this proposal boost or contribute to boosting police/military budget?

BELIEVING that firearm ownership is and always should be a matter of national purview,


THE WORLD ASSEMBLY HEREBY DECREES:

1. The definition of the term "firearm" shall be left up to individual nations to define,
   
   
2. Member nations shall be free to legislate on the matter of firearms ownership as they see fit subject to current international law,
   
   
3. Member nations that allow their citizens to possess firearms shall ensure legitimate recognized law enforcement have a registry in place, and that owners are qualified and licensed to possess such firearms,
   
   
4. Member nations are encouraged to work more closely together on matters of illegal firearms smuggling to hopefully one day put a stop to it.

Second : The quote above should be remain intact.

Third: The sections of "Nothing"/Exhausted"/"Thus seaking" should be removed!!!! Because whie you suffered great "aggravation" from recent firearm proposals.
Bickering about it doesnt help and has no place in a proposal.

[Sciongrad]

It's not taking out the entire category.... It is simply reaffirming that gun ownership is not an international issue.

"Clause 2 would block the 'Gun Control' category", Princess Christine observed.

We, too, find this to be the case. However, my utter contempt for these horrible gun "rights" proposals has caused me to want to see some type of general blocker passed. So my advice to you would be to take a route similar to GAR#68. A general exemption may free up the category enough to make it legal, so I would recommend something along those lines if you want to pursue this. The unabashedly acerbic preambulatory clauses could also be removed or made less scathing because it seems undignified for a World Assembly proposal to use the preamble as a way of condemning another ambassador's behavior.

[The Two Jerseys]

I vehemently object to this proposal on the following grounds:

NOTING the recent spat of terrible resolutions that try to make firearm ownership an international issue,

It should be "spate", not "spat".

Aside from that, I like it.

[Auralia]

Member nations that allow their citizens to possess firearms shall ensure legitimate recognized law enforcement have a registry in place, and that owners are qualified and licensed to possess such firearms,

We oppose the universalization of gun registration and licensing.

[Arkiasis]

Clause 3 places restrictions on a nations ability to regulate or not regulate guns, it mandates that gun registry be put in place and that licensing program be enforced. We recommend that you remove it.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Clause 2 would block the 'Gun Control' category", Princess Christine observed.

We, too, find this to be the case. However, my utter contempt for these horrible gun "rights" proposals has caused me to want to see some type of general blocker passed. So my advice to you would be to take a route similar to GAR#68. A general exemption may free up the category enough to make it legal, so I would recommend something along those lines if you want to pursue this. The unabashedly acerbic preambulatory clauses could also be removed or made less scathing because it seems undignified for a World Assembly proposal to use the preamble as a way of condemning another ambassador's behavior.

"This isn't a bad idea, but if that approach is to be used to, then I think the bulk of the proposal should be about a genuinely international issue such as suppressing illegal arms trafficking (in fact, I'm mildly concerned the proposal as written would inadvertently block more substantive legislation in that area) and then appending a blocking clause.

"Furthermore, the failure of the recent gun rights proposal demonstrates such a proposal is unlikely to pass, at least for the foreseeable future. Thus we struggle to see why a blocker of any sort is even needed. Historically, blockers were only used when it appeared that other legislation really might pass, such as the biological weapons ban and the clinical abortion rights proposal; Nuclear Armaments/NAPA was actually something of an exception in that regard."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Separatist Peoples]

This has my support, since your definition of a registration can be a collection of the serial numbers of manufactured/imported weapons for statistical purposes, and not a registration of their owners' information. One tiny thing...I would remove "and licensed" in Clause 3, since not everybody requires license to own firearms. Seems like that could be interpreted as requiring licensing. Which would be silly.

[Alcase]

Okay Congress

[Kelinfort]

We shall support all efforts to amend and perfect this proposal and will vote for it when it comes to vote.

[Chester Pearson]

We shall support all efforts to amend and perfect this proposal and will vote for it when it comes to vote.

Your assistance is duly noted and appreciated Ambassador.

[Grays Harbor]

I vehemently object to this proposal on the following grounds:

NOTING the recent spat of terrible resolutions that try to make firearm ownership an international issue,

It should be "spate", not "spat".

Aside from that, I like it.

Considering the level of the acrimonious excuse for debate in recent examples of firearms drafts, we might successfully argue that "spat" is indeed more descriptive, in a certain sense.

[Chester Pearson]

In Theory its a rather nice proposal.

It does have some silly issues:

A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

First how is this proposal boost or contribute to boosting police/military budget?

The following clauses make it International Security as they increase police budgets:

Member nations that allow their citizens to possess firearms shall ensure legitimate recognized law enforcement have a registry in place, and that owners are qualified and licensed to possess such firearms,

Member nations are encouraged to work more closely together on matters of illegal firearms smuggling to hopefully one day put a stop to it.

[Normlpeople]

Almost had it ambassador, until you threw a useless registry in there. Without it, we would support. With it, we shall not.

[Belzia]

I'm giving full support, I like that it's up to the individual nation to decide, and not the World Assembly.

[Chester Pearson]

I'm giving full support, I like that it's up to the individual nation to decide, and not the World Assembly.

Your support is most appreciated Ambassador....

Please be advised, my partner in this matter is just going over some final tweaks, before we post a second draft....

[People Who Say Ni]

I'm supporting this, but afraid the clause which allows nations to freely define "firearms" may prevent any legislature acting upon the safe use of firearms.