[RE REVISED] Universal Background Checks & Waiting Periods

[Bananaistan]

OOC: I'm not so much concerned about the waiting period rather than the complete prohibition of sale of firearms to and the confiscation of firearms from the group of people who have "red flags". The mere fact that someone may fall into these groups is not sufficient to assume that they "pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action".

Also, GAR#29 Patient's Rights Act does not permit the sharing of personal medical records, such as those which would record if a person has "violent mental illness(es) ...", by the legislative action of the GA.

[Merni]

OOC: For God's sake put your latest draft in your first post and the older drafts in a spoiler in the same post.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: I'm not so much concerned about the waiting period rather than the complete prohibition of sale of firearms to and the confiscation of firearms from the group of people who have "red flags". The mere fact that someone may fall into these groups is not sufficient to assume that they "pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action".

Since the language says "...which seek to prevent..." I believe an asserted or implied statistical correlation is within the legal boundaries. Otherwise further laws on the topic would be flatly impossible, practically speaking; and I doubt if that was the intended result of that clause.

However...

Also, GAR#29 Patient's Rights Act does not permit the sharing of personal medical records, such as those which would record if a person has "violent mental illness(es) ...", by the legislative action of the GA.

Indeed. The proposal as written is illegal.


MSD, don't submit this again without getting a lot more feedback in the drafting stage, and not just a straight up-or-down legal/illegal verdict. From your nation name and TGs it's clear you care about this - take the time to do it right. And be aware what is possible in the World Assembly may not comport with your ideal solution...

[Separatist Peoples]

By precedent and explicit policy (which IIRC you agreed with), GenSec does not check RL factual claims made by resolution proposals. The efficacy of waiting periods is moot and I have to consider this legal.

Apart from the real world, there still isn't any reason to believe that a waiting period would prevent "imminent lawless action." RITA prohibits gun control regulations, unless they're targeted at "individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action." General firearms regulations, applicable to the ordinary person, are specifically prohibited by the resolution.

This is my reading, and I marked it accordingly. I just don't see a population-wide restriction as passing RITA muster.

[The Skrall]

Reaffirming: This DOES NOT take away an individual's right to own a firearm

a. If at any point, a person with one (1) or more "Yellow Flag(s)" receives a "Red Flag", they must have any/all firearms removed

b. An individual with one (1) or more "Yellow Flag(s)" can have their firearm(s) legally confiscated if a petition with at least 100 signatures (not including the creator of the petition) is brought forth to a judge who then must approve and validate the petition.

How does requiring that someone's firearms be removed not take away an individual's right to own a firearm? It does exactly that.

You have contradictory statements here, I don't know how that would be interpreted. Which clause would take precedence?

[Kenmoria]

Reaffirming: This DOES NOT take away an individual's right to own a firearm

a. If at any point, a person with one (1) or more "Yellow Flag(s)" receives a "Red Flag", they must have any/all firearms removed

b. An individual with one (1) or more "Yellow Flag(s)" can have their firearm(s) legally confiscated if a petition with at least 100 signatures (not including the creator of the petition) is brought forth to a judge who then must approve and validate the petition.

How does requiring that someone's firearms be removed not take away an individual's right to own a firearm? It does exactly that.

You have contradictory statements here, I don't know how that would be interpreted. Which clause would take precedence?

(OOC: The active clauses are the ones that actually have an effect, so they would have precedence.)

[Grays Harbor]

How does requiring that someone's firearms be removed not take away an individual's right to own a firearm? It does exactly that.

You have contradictory statements here, I don't know how that would be interpreted. Which clause would take precedence?

(OOC: The active clauses are the ones that actually have an effect, so they would have precedence.)

OOC: So, you are saying your preamble is in reality, misleading and pointless fluff, and does indeed aim to take away rights?

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: The active clauses are the ones that actually have an effect, so they would have precedence.)

OOC: So, you are saying your preamble is in reality, misleading and pointless fluff, and does indeed aim to take away rights?

(OOC: My pre-amble? This isn't my proposal. That said, the pre-amble is pointless, useless fluff.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

(OOC: My pre-amble?

Your new empire?!

[Edrarin]

How long would this "Waiting Period" be?

[Masurbia]

How long would this "Waiting Period" be?

5. Waiting Period: A time comprising of five (5) business days from when the individual attempts to purchase a firearm in which a "Universal Background Check" is performed

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: This has clearly been abandoned by the OP. Can we let it die the lonely death it deserves?