NationStates

Because sometimes even national leaders just want to hang out
https://forum.nationstates.net/

[RE REVISED] Universal Background Checks & Waiting Periods

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=440507

Page 1 of 3

[DRAFT] Universal Background Checks & Waiting Periods

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 7:02 pm
by Marjory Stoneman Douglas
Recognizes: An individual has the right to own a firearm

Realizing: Many people who own firearms have criminal histories, violent behaviors, malicious intentions, and/or mental illnesses

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

Defines:

    1. Universal Background Check: A search of an individual through the "Universal Background Check System" to search for any " Red flags" or "Yellow Flags" attached to their name/record

    2. Universal Background Check System: A database run and maintained by the state/nation and regularly updated with information on every individual in said nation such as crimes convicted for/committed, abuse/violence cases, known attempt(s) of terrorism/malicious behavior(s), any mental illness(es), any time(s) the individual has been in prison/jail, and/or any time(s) the individual was admitted to a mental institution

    3. Red Flag: A notification which appears on a "Universal Background Check" denoting the individual has been incarcerated for/committed for a felony relating to harm, death, or injury, has mental illness(es) which can lead to misuse of the firearm and/or harm to themselves or others, has been reported to have violent behavior to other individual(s) and/or animals, and/or has been know to support/participate in terrorist groups and/or terrorism

    4. Yellow Flag: A notification which appears on a "Universal Background Check" denoting the individual has been incarcerated, and/or is a convicted felon not relating to harm, injury, or death.

    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



Hereby:

    A. Creates a "Universal Background Check System" in all nations where one does not already exist

    B. Requires a "Universal Background Check" to be performed on any individual wanting to purchase a firearm

    C. Requires a "Waiting Period"

    D. Prevents a firearm from being sold to any individual who has at least one (1) "Red Flag" attached to their name/record

    E. Permits an individual with a "Yellow Flag" attached to their name/record to be sold a firearm. However, they must have another background check performed every four (4) months


      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.

        1. The signatures must be physical (i.e. not online or virtual)

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 7:22 pm
by Tinhampton
Marjory Stoneman Douglas wrote:Recognizes: An individual has the right to own a firearm

Not necessarily. GA#235 "Child Firearm Safety Act", §7, devolves the issue of whether or not to allow guns in the first place to member states.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 7:37 pm
by Marjory Stoneman Douglas
Tinhampton wrote:
Marjory Stoneman Douglas wrote:Recognizes: An individual has the right to own a firearm

Not necessarily. GA#235 "Child Firearm Safety Act", §7, devolves the issue of whether or not to allow guns in the first place to member states.

It does not explicitly say that an individual does not have the right to own a firearm. Also, individual does not refer (solely) to children. Also, GA #235 states that a firearm should not be sold to a child. My proposal states that Universal Background Checks and Waiting Periods are mandatory. It does not contradict GA #235.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 7:39 pm
by Aclion
Tinhampton wrote:
Marjory Stoneman Douglas wrote:Recognizes: An individual has the right to own a firearm

Not necessarily. GA#235 "Child Firearm Safety Act", §7, devolves the issue of whether or not to allow guns in the first place to member states.

No it doesn't. It explicitly affirms that it doesn't touch the matter.

Responsibility In Transferring Arms on the other hand...
Imperium Anglorum wrote:5. Assures member nations of the exclusive right to determine purely internal arms trading and firearm policy, excepting:
  1. those regulations recognized by the terms of this resolution or extant international law,
  2. future regulations which seek to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action, or
  3. future resolutions which seek to relax regulations on purchasing firearms for recreational reasons only;

Now you could get past 5c by changing the first line to read; "Recognizes: An individual has the right to own a firearm for recreational purposes"; but 5b is the real challenge, the persons restricted under your regulations have to meet the standard of "imminent lawless action". This means that even a person with prior violent convictions would not make the cut, as they may no longer pose a danger.

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 8:48 pm
by Alpha Cassiopeiae
OOC: Don't submit proposals to the WA before drafting. It's considered bad form and is the quickest way to garner opposition to a proposal...

PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 1:40 am
by Kenmoria
"Underlining looks extremely bad aesthetically and does nothing to help the proposal. Also, bolting is generally frowned upon. Thirdly, the “Realising” and “Reaffirming” lines are in the continuos, rather than simple aspect, which should be changed to improve consistency."

PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 2:17 am
by Jarish Inyo
First off, why do you generalize gun owners having criminal histories, violent behaviors, malicious intentions, and/or mental illnesses?

Second, why is my nation’s gun policies a concern of any other nations?

PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 3:05 am
by Kenmoria
Jarish Inyo wrote:First off, why do you generalize gun owners having criminal histories, violent behaviors, malicious intentions, and/or mental illnesses?

Second, why is my nation’s gun policies a concern of any other nations?

(OOC: Good questions, the answers to which show why this sort of legislation never works out.)

PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:09 am
by Masurbia
Marjory Stoneman Douglas wrote:
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.

    1. The signatures must be physical (i.e. not online or virtual)

I'm very confused with this clause. You're telling me that if someone gets 100 signatures they can take a person's guns away? What actions determine the creation of a petition? How many Yellow Flags can an individual have? You're proposal also states that an individual with a Red Flag cannot have guns sold to them, but what about people with Red Flags who already own a gun? Nowhere in the proposal does it state what happens then.

2. Universal Background Check System: A database run and maintained by the state/nation and regularly updated with information on every individual in said nation such as crimes convicted for/committed, abuse/violence cases, known attempt(s) of terrorism/malicious behavior(s), any mental illness(es), any time(s) the individual has been in prison/jail, and/or any time(s) the individual was admitted to a mental institution

Here you assume every nation has such a system. Unless you're mandating that nations create a national database to hold all of this information, which would be a huge burden on nations starting from scratch.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:14 am
by Aclion
Masurbia wrote:
Marjory Stoneman Douglas wrote:
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.

    1. The signatures must be physical (i.e. not online or virtual)

I'm very confused with this clause. You're telling me that if someone gets 100 signatures they can take a person's guns away? What actions determine the creation of a petition? How many Yellow Flags can an individual have? You're proposal also states that an individual with a Red Flag cannot have guns sold to them, but what about people with Red Flags who already own a gun? Nowhere in the proposal does it state what happens then.

2. Universal Background Check System: A database run and maintained by the state/nation and regularly updated with information on every individual in said nation such as crimes convicted for/committed, abuse/violence cases, known attempt(s) of terrorism/malicious behavior(s), any mental illness(es), any time(s) the individual has been in prison/jail, and/or any time(s) the individual was admitted to a mental institution

Here you assume every nation has such a system. Unless you're mandating that nations create a national database to hold all of this information, which would be a huge burden on nations starting from scratch.

It doesn't matter, it's all blatantly illegal.

PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 8:00 am
by Kenmoria
"Clause Eb1 would be very difficult for an AI nation to follow."

PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 8:33 am
by Rafterland
Kenmoria wrote:"Clause Eb1 would be very difficult for an AI nation to follow."


"I think a universal trait of sentient robots all around is that they are very good at interfacing with printers, except the ones derived from the great Macrohard DOORS singularity obviously."

PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 8:44 am
by Kenmoria
Rafterland wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:"Clause Eb1 would be very difficult for an AI nation to follow."


"I think a universal trait of sentient robots all around is that they are very good at interfacing with printers, except the ones derived from the great Macrohard DOORS singularity obviously."

"Yes, but it makes no sense in a nation with the entire populace being AIs to exclude their preferred means of communication. Besides, if security can be guaranteed, there's little reason to exclude digital signatures in the first place."

PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 9:29 am
by Rafterland
Kenmoria wrote:
Rafterland wrote:
"I think a universal trait of sentient robots all around is that they are very good at interfacing with printers, except the ones derived from the great Macrohard DOORS singularity obviously."

"Yes, but it makes no sense in a nation with the entire populace being AIs to exclude their preferred means of communication. Besides, if security can be guaranteed, there's little reason to exclude digital signatures in the first place."


"Haha that's true, Kenny, and they'd just 3D print their guns anyway. Truly, it shows how obvious it is that this assembly is too diverse to legiferate on such a broad thing as armament. Let's let countries decide if and how they want to shoot stuff bon sang!"

PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 3:14 pm
by Kenmoria
"Clause C is very ambiguous. Requires a waiting check for what? I presume buying guns but it could easily refer to having a waiting period for the action required in clause B due to being below it. Besides, you know how some unsavoury delegations like to exploit things like this."

PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:57 pm
by Imperium Anglorum
Child Firearm Safety Act doesn’t create a blocker. It simply states that nothing in its resolution infringes – the affirmation is little more than a clarification.

EDIT: Okay, if I said that I affirm that nothing in my contract with you provides for the transfer of the title for your soles and soul to me, that means that nothing in my contract does that. That does not mean that nothing in any contract anywhere does that.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:55 am
by Kenmoria
"I must say that the 100 signatures signatures required to prevent someone from owning a gun is just a way for the unpopular people of society to have their rights restricted and seems rather tyrannical."

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:58 am
by Bears Armed
Kenmoria wrote:"I must say that the 100 signatures signatures required to prevent someone from owning a gun is just a way for the unpopular people of society to have their rights restricted and seems rather tyrannical."

"And definitely contradicts GA Resolution #399, clause 5."

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 11:36 am
by Ochea
Marjory Stoneman Douglas wrote:Reaffirming: This DOES NOT take away an individual's right to own a firearm

Marjory Stoneman Douglas wrote: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.
(Emphasis mine)

This legislation can take away an individual's right to a firearm, yet you say that it cannot. I do not think it is a good idea to have such contradictory statements in your legislation.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 12:34 pm
by Grays Harbor
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.

1. The signatures must be physical (i.e. not online or virtual)

This is just ... ridiculous. 100 people to sign a petition? There are just so very many ways this could be horribly abused by a government.

"That speeding ticket is going to cost you 8 hours in jail, and loss of your guns"
"A jaywalker, huh? 12 hours in jail!"
"Your grass is longer than the maximum allowed. 3 days in jail!"

Sound silly? Those are incarcerations

"You want a gun?? That is an indicator for a latent violent personality disorder. We'll give you 72 hours in the mental hospital to get checked."

This whole thing is just so much simplistic twaddle that would no more effect on criminals doing criminal things than any other current law already does. I've heard it said that criminals tend to not obey laws. This is why "We have to Do Something!" rarely, if ever, does anything useful. Instead, the opposite it the general rule.

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

NoGo. This mess does exactly that.

"Oh, you still have the Right to own a firearms, but ... Oh No ... the background check says no you can't. And, whoopsy, you don't have 100 people willing to sign your little petition. Sorry, not sorry."

OOC: 100 signatures? I don't believe I even know 100 people locally.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 6:47 pm
by Wallenburg
Marjory Stoneman Douglas wrote:Reaffirming: This DOES NOT take away an individual's right to own a firearm

D. Prevents a firearm from being sold to any individual who has at least one (1) "Red Flag" attached to their name/record

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

Well, those don't contradict each other. :P

PostPosted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 7:41 pm
by Imperium Anglorum
Grays Harbor wrote:This is just ... ridiculous. 100 people to sign a petition? There are just so very many ways this could be horribly abused by a government.

OOC: Have you heard of a writ of debt? In the past, if you were sued for non-payment of some thing, and therefore owed money to someone, if you got 11 other compurgators, then you didn't need to pay.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 8:23 am
by Grays Harbor
Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Grays Harbor wrote:This is just ... ridiculous. 100 people to sign a petition? There are just so very many ways this could be horribly abused by a government.

OOC: Have you heard of a writ of debt? In the past, if you were sued for non-payment of some thing, and therefore owed money to someone, if you got 11 other compurgators, then you didn't need to pay.

OOC: So? Just because a bad idea has been done before does not make it any less of a bad idea when repeated. You totally missed my point, though, completely. Read my examples on how it could be abused. Also, big difference between 100 and 11. Everybody knows at least 11 people who will sign something. Very few know 100.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 8:25 am
by Imperium Anglorum
Grays Harbor wrote:OOC: So? Just because a bad idea has been done before does not make it any less of a bad idea when repeated. You totally missed my point, though, completely. Read my examples on how it could be abused. Also, big difference between 100 and 11. Everybody knows at least 11 people who will sign something. Very few know 100.

Where did I say it was a good idea? There's a very legitimate reason why assumpsit actions become the predominant form of action for recovery of debts. It's just an interesting quirk in mediaeval English law.

[RE REVISED] Universal Background Checks & Waiting Periods

PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:26 am
by Marjory Stoneman Douglas
Realizing: Many people who have violent criminal histories, violent behaviors, malicious intentions, and/or violent mental illness(es) have little to no difficulty when attempting to obtain firearms.

Defines:


    1. Universal Background Check: A search of an individual through the "Universal Background Check System" to search for any "Red flags" attached to their name/record

    2. Universal Background Check System: A database run and maintained by the state/nation and regularly updated with information on every individual in said nation such as crimes convicted for/committed, abuse/violence cases, known attempt(s) of terrorism/malicious behavior(s), any mental illness(es), any time(s) the individual has been in prison/jail, and/or any time(s) the individual was admitted to a mental institution

    3. Red Flag: A notification which appears on a "Universal Background Check" denoting the individual has been incarcerated for/committed for a felony relating to harm, death, or injury, has voilent mental illness(es) which can lead to misuse of the firearm and/or harm to themselves or others, has been reported to have violent behavior to other individual(s) and/or animals, and/or has been know to support/participate in violent terrorist groups and/or terrorism

    4. 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

Hereby:


    A. Creates a "Universal Background Check System" in all nations where one does not already exist

    B. Requires a "Universal Background Check" to be performed on any individual wanting to purchase a firearm

    C. Requires a "Waiting Period"

    D. Prevents a firearm from being sold to any individual who has at least one (1) "Red Flag" attached to their name/record

      a. If at any point, an individual receives a “Red Flag”, who did not have one previously, they shall have their firearms legally taken from them
All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Page 1 of 3
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/