[ReDRAFT] Limitations of Firearms to the Mentally Ill

[Thermodolia]

“If you would excuse me for one moment ambassadors”, Eve said as she carried a M249 into the chamber. “Now Jon if you would please attach the proposal to the stand and step back”, as she says this she cocks the automatic Machine gun. “And now for my rebuttal!!” She unloads 200 rounds into the stand and proposal, “There I think I’ve made my point clear”

[Imperial Polk County]

“If you would excuse me for one moment ambassadors”, Eve said as she carried a M249 into the chamber. “Now Jon if you would please attach the proposal to the stand and step back”, as she says this she cocks the automatic Machine gun. “And now for my rebuttal!!” She unloads 200 rounds into the stand and proposal, “There I think I’ve made my point clear”

Drane approaches the stand and sticks a finger into the sticky white substance that has covered the stand and the proposal. He dabs a bit on his tongue, grins, and sucks the rest off his finger. "Mmm. Marshmallow. Oh, I'm sorry, it's my first time seeing the weapons nullifier in action."

[Copperward]

... From how I see it, if there is an individual with a mental illness who wants to harm or murder others, if they cannot get a gun from their nation's gun stores, they will either get a gun from the local black market, order a gun outside of the nation, craft their own guns or explosives, or resort to using makeshift weapons like a kitchen knife. Taking guns away from the mentally ill is not a solution...

OOC: Yeah. We can't stop all crimes, so it's pointless to try to stop any

OOC: The purpose of my post was to point out that disarming mentally ill people will not solve the problem. Even without guns, those who are mentally ill and pose a danger to the public could resort to other methods of harming others: using kitchen knives, physical assault, resorting to getting guns from the black market or outside of the nation, or crafting their own. I believe that the best solution to this issue is to not only remove gun access from mentally ill who pose a danger to the public, but to also invest more resources and giving them greater access in order to address the psychological issues that these people are afflicted with.

*snip*

In no way is this resolution 'picking on' anyone because of a disease they have. We had to start somewhere with comprehensive gun reform in the WA, and this is where I chose to start.

Nor am I trying to accuse you of "picking on" anyone. I simply feel that your definition of the mentally ill is extremely ambiguous and is somewhat insulting. I believe you need to provide a better definition of "mentally ill" so that only the people that definitively pose a threat to the public are prohibited from owning firearms.

. . . About your point relating my definition, if I'm not wrong, it is not super common to have a disease that could give you an altered or skewed view of reality, especially on that could potentially make them unable to understand the potential consequences of their actions and/or comply with formal rules and regulations when it comes to this topic.

Under your definition, I could interpret a person who has been diagnosed with an alcohol or substance abuse, opioid use disorder, eating disorder, or anxiety disorder as a "mentally ill individual" who should be ineligible to own a gun.

I understand you want to prohibit guns from dangerous mentally ill people, but you need to change your definition of "mentally ill individual" so that those with mental illnesses that aren't a threat to the public are not blacklisted and alienated of their right to own a gun (if their nation permits individuals to own a firearm).

Support, as long as the mentally ill get the help needed to recover or try to recover & cope from their state. Mentally ill need help, & serious conditions do not allow people to properly use weaponry.

I fully agree, but that would need to be another resolution itself!!

n o

“If you would excuse me for one moment ambassadors”, Eve said as she carried a M249 into the chamber. “Now Jon if you would please attach the proposal to the stand and step back”, as she says this she cocks the automatic Machine gun. “And now for my rebuttal!!” She unloads 200 rounds into the stand and proposal, “There I think I’ve made my point clear”

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"Ambassador, the terms of GAR #399 are fairly tight. You'll need to find a way to target specifically those weapon buyers who can reasonably be suspected of planning, quote, 'imminent lawless action,' unquote. Now, we're not necessarily opposed to the apparent goals of this resolution, but you will need to tread carefully. You've picked a really steep uphill battle and you've got a hell of a slog ahead of you."

Even if someone who is extremely mentally ill but not suspected of planning 'imminent lawless action' should not be able to buy and trade firearm. These people may not be suspected of breaking the law, but they could potentially end many innocent lives because of something like a severe mood swing.

"This is the point I'm trying to make: due to existing WA law which cannot be contradicted, your regulations are limited to keeping weapons from those who are likely to commit crimes with them. You're right that 'planning' is neither a reasonable standard nor required by the existing statute - but you still need to thread a needle here. Your current definition of mentally ill individuals encompasses far more than just those prone to violent mood swings - a huge number of people you're pointing the finger at here would in fact not be dangerous to the public even if armed. You need to tighten this up to include only those individuals who are actually dangerous. Otherwise you've got no hope of passing this."

Before you get too far with this, you should understand that part of the resolution process is getting feedback from other players to improve the text of your draft. When we make these criticisms, we're not attacking you the player - we're pointing out things that you could use to make your resolution better. If you want the voters to actually vote for this, it's a good idea to listen and incorporate feedback into your next draft. I see a couple of places where it looks like you're resisting even the suggestion that this draft isn't ready to go, and I don't want you to get the wrong idea - drafting a good resolution, one that lasts, takes weeks and even months of people looking for flaws and pointing them out so you can patch them up. Because this is In Character, sometimes the tone is a bit snarky - "You want my nation to do what??? Out of the question," etc. But it's not an Out Of Character judgment on you the player. Just keep that in mind and actually realize that the criticisms people make are designed to help you improve your resolution!

“If you would excuse me for one moment ambassadors”, Eve said as she carried a M249 into the chamber. “Now Jon if you would please attach the proposal to the stand and step back”, as she says this she cocks the automatic Machine gun. “And now for my rebuttal!!” She unloads 200 rounds into the stand and proposal, “There I think I’ve made my point clear”

Drane approaches the stand and sticks a finger into the sticky white substance that has covered the stand and the proposal. He dabs a bit on his tongue, grins, and sucks the rest off his finger. "Mmm. Marshmallow. Oh, I'm sorry, it's my first time seeing the weapons nullifier in action."

Steph looks at the podium with interest. She looks to the back of the chamber, where an intern is standing by, and crooks her finger a couple of times. The young man rushes quietly to the Lyrical desk, and bends down to hear the instructions.

"Larry," Steph says, "fetch the graham crackers, wouldja? And some chocolate."

The intern leaves the chamber at a brisk walk.

"Hmm... I wonder..."

Steph stands and reaches inside her coat, around behind her back, and draws out the CDSP-issued M37 naval service pistol. She sights on the podium and squeezes the trigger once. The weapons nullifier hums, but the white mass still sprouts a little hole. Steph wanders over to investigate. She pulls a small item from the shallow impression, and turns it over in her hand a couple of times.

She carefully puts the object to her lips.

"Gods dammit! Butterscotch?!? So close... and yet, so far."

[Wallenburg]

THEREFORE, shall enact the rules of this proposal for the protection of both the disabled/mentally ill and the residents of all World Assembly nations, as further added here:

"You can shorten this to 'hereby'."

I. Defines "mentally ill individual" as a sapient experiencing an extreme medically-diagnosed disorder/s connected to the mind that may give them an altered or skewed view of reality, and that could potentially make them unable to understand the potential consequences of their actions

"This definition does not match what that phrase actually means. If you insist on such a definition, at least clarify that this definition exists only for the purposes of this resolution."

III. Bans people who fit the definition of "mentally ill individual", that is provided above, from using or possessing a firearm

This can be rephrased to simply "Bans mentally ill individuals from using or possessing a firearm." Also, end punctuation, please.

[Separatist Peoples]

“If you would excuse me for one moment ambassadors”, Eve said as she carried a M249 into the chamber. “Now Jon if you would please attach the proposal to the stand and step back”, as she says this she cocks the automatic Machine gun. “And now for my rebuttal!!” She unloads 200 rounds into the stand and proposal, “There I think I’ve made my point clear”

"Hey, didn't I see you talking about gnomes and guns not too long ago?"

[No Name Available]

"Greetings, and well met to the ambassador of West Guam who has brought this proposal forward. I certainly agree with the intent behind the proposal, but alas find that I cannot support it in its current form.

"First is the notion that in the BELIEVING line you suggest that nations who do not regulate access to firearms to protect their citizens are immoral. I am sure that this is not your intent, but that is the impression that I get as I read it.

"Second, the line beginning THEREFORE introduces disabled, but nowhere else are they mentioned. Why would they be mentioned at all? If the intent is to suggest that disabled people are also mentally ill, then I suppose you can leave it as-is. I do not believe this to be the case, however, and so heartily suggest you strike it out.

"Finally, the Resolution seems to make it illegal for the mentally ill to possess a firearm. And those mentally ill people are defined as those with an altered or skewed view of reality. I mean, really, this is...It certainly seems that anyone who has partaken of certain mind-altering substances would suddenly not be allowed to possess their firearms. Or it would allow certain governments to dictate what reality is, and loudly proclaim that anyone who disagrees is mentally ill, and thus deprive them of their firearms. The clause seems to be quite open to abuse, but I admit that governments prone to do so would be those most likely to act that way regardless, so perhaps that is intended."

[Kenmoria]

"In the last clause, "mentally ill individual" should not have speech marks around it if firearm does not."

[West Guam]

I do not believe that this resolution fails to comply with the rules set in GA Resolution #399.

How and why? (Also, my comment was directed to First German Order, not you.)

Ah, I misunderstood!

I believe that it does comply with the rules set in Resolution #399 for the reasons that I previously stated (These people do pose an imminent lawless action as they are so mentally ill that they cannot fully understand and comply with past gun control resolutions that have been passed).

the Resolution seems to make it illegal for the mentally ill to possess a firearm. And those mentally ill people are defined as those with an altered or skewed view of reality. I mean, really, this is...It certainly seems that anyone who has partaken of certain mind-altering substances would suddenly not be allowed to possess their firearms. Or it would allow certain governments to dictate what reality is, and loudly proclaim that anyone who disagrees is mentally ill, and thus deprive them of their firearms. The clause seems to be quite open to abuse, but I admit that governments prone to do so would be those most likely to act that way regardless, so perhaps that is intended."

That is intended as this would 173% NOT pass if nations were not allowed to interpret this resolution in their own way

[The First German Order]

How and why? (Also, my comment was directed to First German Order, not you.)

Ah, I misunderstood!

I believe that it does comply with the rules set in Resolution #399 for the reasons that I previously stated (These people do pose an imminent lawless action as they are so mentally ill that they cannot fully understand and comply with past gun control resolutions that have been passed).

OOC: Not all mentally ill people are "so mentally ill that they can't understand and comply with past guy control resolutions that have been passed" and not all mentally ill people "pose an imminent lawless action".

[Separatist Peoples]

How and why? (Also, my comment was directed to First German Order, not you.)

Ah, I misunderstood!

I believe that it does comply with the rules set in Resolution #399 for the reasons that I previously stated (These people do pose an imminent lawless action as they are so mentally ill that they cannot fully understand and comply with past gun control resolutions that have been passed).

OOC: I don't believe that is a reasonable interpretation of GAR#399:5(b).

[b] future regulations which seek to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action[. . . ]

Mentally ill people don't necessarily pose a danger of imminent lawless action. They do pose a possible danger, but so many mentally ill people are not, it would be a stretch to say the mentally ill are, by virtue of possessing a gun, posing a danger of imminent lawless action. If you narrowed this to the criminally insane, or the insane who also show a strong tendency toward violence, you might have a better leg to stand on. As written, I'm not sure this is legal.

[Wrapper]

OOC: Hmmmmmm:

[b] future regulations which seek to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action[. . . ]

Okay, but, what about such individuals owning or possessing firearms? Is there a loophole there?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Hmmmmmm:

[b] future regulations which seek to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action[. . . ]

Okay, but, what about such individuals owning or possessing firearms? Is there a loophole there?

OOC: So you think you can ban possession but not sale or use? Its interesting, but I'm not sure. Possession is the necessary result of a sale. You buy something, you gain a possessory interest in it. If the word "sold" wasn't involved, maybe. You'd manage that if the resolution said only "use." But the nature of a sale has an implied possessory right, so owning and possessing seem covered.

[Wrapper]

Okay, but, what about such individuals owning or possessing firearms? Is there a loophole there?

OOC: So you think you can ban possession but not sale or use? Its interesting, but I'm not sure. Possession is the necessary result of a sale. You buy something, you gain a possessory interest in it. If the word "sold" wasn't involved, maybe. You'd manage that if the resolution said only "use." But the nature of a sale has an implied possessory right, so owning and possessing seem covered.

OOC: At the time of sale or use, yes, but what about sometime later on? A person may not pose any danger at all when legally purchasing a gun but if at some time later it is determined that a person is mentally ill, there's nothing in GAR#399 that says the state can't take away such a person's firearms. Agreed, as written, this draft seems to contradict GAR#399, but I may have found one possible way around that.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: So you think you can ban possession but not sale or use? Its interesting, but I'm not sure. Possession is the necessary result of a sale. You buy something, you gain a possessory interest in it. If the word "sold" wasn't involved, maybe. You'd manage that if the resolution said only "use." But the nature of a sale has an implied possessory right, so owning and possessing seem covered.

OOC: At the time of sale or use, yes, but what about sometime later on? A person may not pose any danger at all when legally purchasing a gun but if at some time later it is determined that a person is mentally ill, there's nothing in GAR#399 that says the state can't take away such a person's firearms. Agreed, as written, this draft seems to contradict GAR#399, but I may have found one possible way around that.

OOC: Maybe? I still think that the possessory interest in a sale is implicit to the transaction and extends to general possession. Otherwise, the government could let you buy the gun and then seize it from you ten seconds later. That's not a realistic perspective on the law. But that's just me. Scion wrote GAR#399, he probably can give a better explanation on the intent. And I'm only one of the 5 people who get a say (Scion's conflicted out, iirc), so a challenge might yield a different result.

I also think that the author could make this legal by narrowing the class of mentally ill affected to those who present a risk of violence or criminality.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Mentally ill people don't necessarily pose a danger of imminent lawless action. They do pose a possible danger, but so many mentally ill people are not, it would be a stretch to say the mentally ill are, by virtue of possessing a gun, posing a danger of imminent lawless action. If you narrowed this to the criminally insane, or the insane who also show a strong tendency toward violence, you might have a better leg to stand on. As written, I'm not sure this is legal.

This. Imminent lawless action is an extremely tough bar to meet. It means that the person is basically just about to commit some lawless action. Not at some point in the future, but right now. And that we have extreme certainty that it both is going to occur now and that it will in fact occur. Your claims about mentally ill people (beyond the fact they are massive overgeneralisations that I think are inaccurate) do not meet that standard.

[Araraukar]

Mentally ill people don't necessarily pose a danger of imminent lawless action. They do pose a possible danger, but so many mentally ill people are not

OOC: And in a lot of cases the biggest danger they'd pose was to themselves, and suicide is explicitly legal as per WA resolutions.

If you narrowed this to the criminally insane, or the insane who also show a strong tendency toward violence, you might have a better leg to stand on.

^This. The current definition includes people with depression and bipolar, for example, and possibly things like gender dysmorphia...

[Virgin Guam Islands]

I do believe that you need to simply go back and revise this idea. I understand that it has taken you a while to make this but now that you have read the (partly) constructive criticism in the replies you can now go along and tweak it. Also, your nation would probably not care if or why any mentally ill person has a gun and there is a mass shooting. There seems to be very little for anyone to gain but if you still feel strongly about this you may as well go back and tweak it and you might get some support.

[Edreland]

"Sorry, but no. This amorphous definition of 'mentally ill' cannot be realistically used to build a piece of legislation. I appreciate the honorable Ambassador's intent, but if this was passed in its current form, irresponsible governments would use the WA mandate to strip any citizens branded as having a 'skewed view of reality' of their firearms. Personal freedom would go right in the crapper."

[Wallenburg]

This. Imminent lawless action is an extremely tough bar to meet. It means that the person is basically just about to commit some lawless action. Not at some point in the future, but right now. And that we have extreme certainty that it both is going to occur now and that it will in fact occur.

The clause does not demand that we be certain someone is just about to commit lawless action, but rather that there be a danger that they may do so.

[Separatist Peoples]

This. Imminent lawless action is an extremely tough bar to meet. It means that the person is basically just about to commit some lawless action. Not at some point in the future, but right now. And that we have extreme certainty that it both is going to occur now and that it will in fact occur.

The clause does not demand that we be certain someone is just about to commit lawless action, but rather that there be a danger that they may do so.

The danger must be one of imminent action. That's still a high bar. You'd need to prove that the person is at risk of committing a crime right now or so soon as makes no difference. Even allowing for possibility, that's a difficult threshold to articulate, and would require conclusive evidence.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

The clause does not demand that we be certain someone is just about to commit lawless action, but rather that there be a danger that they may do so.

The danger must be one of imminent action. That's still a high bar. You'd need to prove that the person is at risk of committing a crime right now or so soon as makes no difference. Even allowing for possibility, that's a difficult threshold to articulate, and would require conclusive evidence.

Under #399/5, future regulations must seek to prevent...imminent lawless action. They needn't be so perfectly targeted at all and only buyers who are guaranteed to commit crimes very soon, a la Minority Report. That is an unrealistic and unreasonably strict standard. It's enough that the potential buyer has a quantifiable increased likelihood of criminal conduct (e.g. a past conviction for violent crime, or a debilitating mental illness which increases his propensity to violence). The WA has a compelling interest in asking rhetorically why else such persons would even want to buy weapons. It's reasonable to assume enough of them are buying with violence in mind that restricting their purchase is necessary for public order and therefore legal under #399/5. If they want to do some target shooting, they can make friends down at the rod and gun club.

However I agree, as stated above, that the current definition of mental illness leaves this draft illegally broad.

[Separatist Peoples]

The danger must be one of imminent action. That's still a high bar. You'd need to prove that the person is at risk of committing a crime right now or so soon as makes no difference. Even allowing for possibility, that's a difficult threshold to articulate, and would require conclusive evidence.

Under #399/5, future regulations must seek to prevent...imminent lawless action. They needn't be so perfectly targeted at all and only buyers who are guaranteed to commit crimes very soon, a la Minority Report. That is an unrealistic and unreasonably strict standard. It's enough that the potential buyer has a quantifiable increased likelihood of criminal conduct (e.g. a past conviction for violent crime, or a debilitating mental illness which increases his propensity to violence). The WA has a compelling interest in asking rhetorically why else such persons would even want to buy weapons. It's reasonable to assume enough of them are buying with violence in mind that restricting their purchase is necessary for public order and therefore legal under #399/5. If they want to do some target shooting, they can make friends down at the rod and gun club.

However I agree, as stated above, that the current definition of mental illness leaves this draft illegally broad.

I think we're mostly saying the same thing.

[Dirty Americans]

I. Defines "mentally ill individual" as a sapient experiencing an extreme medically-diagnosed disorder/s connected to the mind that may give them an altered or skewed view of reality, and that could potentially make them unable to understand the potential consequences of their actions

Frankly, I don't like this definition. It's a sloppy definition. A disorder that may and that could?
It describes half of the socialists I know of

[Nobodyville]

My nation is founded on basic human rights INCLUDING the right for any citizen to defend themselves against attack.

I cannot ever support such a threat to national sovereignty much less a threat to basic human rights to self preservation.