[BACK TO DRAFTING] Repeal "Child Firearm Safety Act"

[Greater Cesnica]

Any other thoughts on my proposal?

That giving guns to children, even trained children, is insane and crazy. The press from around the world is littered with stories of children accidentally shooting their parents, or staff at firing ranges, so quite honestly keeping guns away from them seems like the best idea for the safety of everyone concerned.

Of course, since guns are illegal in Covenstone, whether this gets repealed or not is not going to matter, but for the good of children (and adults) everywhere else, I say no

It's for the safety of children around the world that I ask people to say yes. This proposal is flawed, has loopholes, and doesn't technically enforce anything. It merely "urges", or "encourages".

[Imperium Anglorum]

This proposal has been submitted: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1497994552

The following telegram was received by delegates,

To the esteemed Delegates of the World Assembly,

I am sending this telegram because I have co-authored a repeal proposal with the generous help of a veteran nation, Isaris.

The link to this proposal can be found here: https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1497994552

The resolution we wish to repeal, titled "Child Firearm Safety Act" has been chosen by us because of fundamental contradictions and flaws within its 7 clauses. Not only is the resolution vague to the point that loopholes arise, these loopholes defeat the purpose of this entire resolution- to protect children.

We have even discovered a bit of plagiarism within the resolution, but have chosen not to address it due to the fact that GA Secretariats advised us against it.

Here's the resolution in question: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1

If you feel that this resolution should be rendered null, and replaced with a better, more comprehensive piece of legislation, then all you have to do is approve our proposal.

Sincerely,

Greater Cesnica and Isaris

[Wolfhawk]

honestly I think this is a waste of time. the only thing that might need fixing form the resolutiion is moving the training part above the posttraining part. have a gun keep it way form the child until the child is trained. once they are safely trained they can handled a gun. when not in use keep them locked up to prevent accidents.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I find myself strangely drawn to defending a resolution written by Cowardly Pacifists (also known as Losthaven). Seems out of character for me, having long crusaded against their resolutions.

http://imgur.com/a/2EOGs

The 'contradictions' noted by the repeal's author, i.e. sections 4, 5, and 7, are exceptions to the over-arching provision created by CP (this is shown from the inclusion of the words 'notwithstanding' in sections 4 and 5). It certainly is stylistic in their legislation to mandate some kind of great broad statement, and then chip away at it to carve out any of the major 'repeal hooks'. The provisions in sections 4 and 5 are such examples. They are not contradictions, they are exceptions.

Section 7 states an affirmation that 'nothing in this Act affects the ability of member nations to legalize or prohibit firearm ownership through national or international law'. It doesn't, as the sections provided for in the target resolution regulate the storage, provision, acquisition, and knowledge of firearms. It does not affect ownership.

Your 'Irritated' clause is false, as it directly ignores the provision in section 4 for making it legal for provision of a firearm to a child given demonstrated knowledge of firearm safety and proper use.

[Uan aa Boa]

A "child" is not restricted to firearms, which directly contradicts the purpose of Clause 3:

3. REQUIRES that any firearm kept or stored in the home of a child be secured in a reasonable manner to eliminate the risk of injury or death to the child

This means that although a child may handle and even use a firearm, by the acting effect of Clause 3, a child cannot be able to reach a firearm by themselves.

I don't think you've given enough consideration to the legal meaning of "reasonable" when you assume that GA #235 requires that guns be locked away from a trained child who has demonstrated competence. The purpose of the resolution is to prevent access to firearms for children who aren't trained and competent. The act of training and assessing a child itself constitutes the required reasonable steps to eliminate risk. Your hypothetical scenario in which a child is forbidden to open the box containing the gun she's allowed to use is manifestly unreasonable.

I find your whole proposed repeal confusing. On the one hand you criticise GA #235 for allowing children any access to firearms in any circumstances, yet elsewhere you state that many children are competent to use firearms and bemoan the need for them to be supervised doing so. What exactly is it that you're looking for?

[Bakhton]

"I find the reasoning here wholly confusing," Lara Qzu says brushing the cobwebs off her desk. "I sit firmly against."

[Covenstone]

That giving guns to children, even trained children, is insane and crazy. The press from around the world is littered with stories of children accidentally shooting their parents, or staff at firing ranges, so quite honestly keeping guns away from them seems like the best idea for the safety of everyone concerned.

Of course, since guns are illegal in Covenstone, whether this gets repealed or not is not going to matter, but for the good of children (and adults) everywhere else, I say no

It's for the safety of children around the world that I ask people to say yes. This proposal is flawed, has loopholes, and doesn't technically enforce anything. It merely "urges", or "encourages".

Are we reading the same resolution?

Clause 1 defines what a child is (which is fairly standard, since there have been arguments in the past. Also, despite previous comments, it is not actually plagiarism since it is very hard to define what a child is in terms that don't use the words 'age of majority'!)

Clauses 2, 3 and 6 all have active text (Declares, Requires and Mandates) while Clause 5 arguably doesn't do a lot and Clause 7 just ensures that this doesn't stop other people making laws and/or resolutions.

To me this does seem to have a lot of active and enforceable Clauses, and does stop children from accidentally shooting themselves due to being untrained. (And also lets you train children so they can shoot other people, which to me is just idiotic and silly, but *shrug* to each their own!)

And, like I said, since Covenstone outlawed guns for everyone (outside of the military) a few years back, we take very little part in gun control debates because they don't affect us. So I would say even if this came to a vote, we would probably not support it or vote against it.

Sorry, but that's the way it is.

[Greater Cesnica]

A "child" is not restricted to firearms, which directly contradicts the purpose of Clause 3:

3. REQUIRES that any firearm kept or stored in the home of a child be secured in a reasonable manner to eliminate the risk of injury or death to the child

This means that although a child may handle and even use a firearm, by the acting effect of Clause 3, a child cannot be able to reach a firearm by themselves.

I don't think you've given enough consideration to the legal meaning of "reasonable" when you assume that GA #235 requires that guns be locked away from a trained child who has demonstrated competence. The purpose of the resolution is to prevent access to firearms for children who aren't trained and competent. The act of training and assessing a child itself constitutes the required reasonable steps to eliminate risk. Your hypothetical scenario in which a child is forbidden to open the box containing the gun she's allowed to use is manifestly unreasonable.

I find your whole proposed repeal confusing. On the one hand you criticise GA #235 for allowing children any access to firearms in any circumstances, yet elsewhere you state that many children are competent to use firearms and bemoan the need for them to be supervised doing so. What exactly is it that you're looking for?

I was pointing out two different contradictions in the original Resolution.

[Greater Cesnica]

honestly I think this is a waste of time. the only thing that might need fixing form the resolutiion is moving the training part above the posttraining part. have a gun keep it way form the child until the child is trained. once they are safely trained they can handled a gun. when not in use keep them locked up to prevent accidents.

There are many contradictions within the resolution.

[Isaris]

As a listed co-author, I've filed a GHR to have this pulled from the proposal queue. Furthermore, I'd like to clarify that my role in this venture has been exaggerated. As this very thread will indicate, my involvement doesn't go any further than the author making use of ideas I'd posted years ago. I didn't help draft this proposal in any way personally and I do not feel that what the author has produced was ready for submission. It was submitted by the author without my knowledge and the telegram, which I'd advised against sending, was signed with my name without my permission or a chance for me to review the message beforehand.

Greater Cesnica, with this said, I'd like to drop out of your project and ask that you remove me as a co-author of this proposal. While I appreciate that you wish to credit me for my post's part in your thought process, in reflection I don't feel that that is necessary. I haven't contributed to this draft in a way that I believe should merit a co-author and respectfully decline the opportunity to work further on this at this time. I wish you the best of luck in pursuing your goal and hope that those with far more GA experience than myself can help you achieve that.

[Crazy girl]

Proposal removed per listed co-author's request.

[Isaris]

Proposal removed per listed co-author's request.

Thank you. I appreciate the NS team's timely response.