[Abandoned] Gun Registration and Licensing Act

[Frankrussenstein]

The World Assembly,
Seeking to reduce gun violence in member states,
Believing that requiring those with firearms to have a license prior to the acquisition of a gun, as well as knowing who owns what guns, can reduce the likelihood of guns falling into the wrong hands,
Acknowledging that many nations guarantee a right to bear arms by citizens,
1. Establishes the World Office of Gun Legislation and Registration (henceforth referred to in this legislation as “WOGLAR”), granting it the power to:
a. Issue licenses to citizens who desire to privately own firearms (citizens who desire to own guns are henceforth referred to as “candidates”)
b. Test candidates’ knowledge of firearms, their proper storage and cleaning, and proper use of a gun
c. Conduct background checks on candidates for any criminal record or membership of recognized terrorist or hate groups
d. Conduct mental tests to ensure that candidates are mentally fit to possess guns so as to protect themselves and others from gun violence
e. Oversee the registration of firearms
2. Mandates that all firearms be registered with WOGLAR.
3. Mandates that all those who want to possess firearms acquire a license from WOGLAR.
4. Mandates that all WA member states punish those who possess guns without a license, as well as those with false gun licenses.
5. Mandates that all WA member states warn those who possess unregistered guns, and if they continue to resist registration their guns, punish them.
6. Provides a two-year grace period for all citizens to comply with these provisions.

(OOC): This is my first ever proposal, and I would very much like it to eventually be ready to be voted on. If I have made any mistakes with formatting, please correct me. I appreciate any and all criticism or advice. Thank you!

[Frisbeeteria]

You need:

1. Category and strength / Area of Effect
2. A strong stomach to handle the criticism from players who will NEVER accept any form of WA gun legislation

[Imperium Anglorum]

On mobile. But RITA prohibits this. Look it up in the passed resolutions thread, use command F.

[Frankrussenstein]

You need:

1. Category and strength / Area of Effect
2. A strong stomach to handle the criticism from players who will NEVER accept any form of WA gun legislation

Thank you. I’ll add those, and keep that in mind. What strength level would you call this?

[Frankrussenstein]

On mobile. But RITA prohibits this. Look it up in the passed resolutions thread, use command F.

Thank you for your input. However, I’m not sure that RITA prohibits this. Under RITA, provision 5b, wouldn’t my proposal count as “future regulations which seek to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action”? If I’m missing/misunderstanding something, let me know.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The hole which Rita creates is solely for:

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

You need to meet all three of those criteria. This proposal does not meet the last criterion, which must engage with the section in bold.

[Separatist Peoples]

"No. Cold dead hands. Not an international issue. Send to the shredder."

[Frankrussenstein]

The hole which Rita creates is solely for:

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

You need to meet all three of those criteria. This proposal does not meet the last criterion, which must engage with the section in bold.

It would seem to me that by establishing licensing and registration, this regulation does aim to make sure guns are kept out of the hands of those who would “pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action”. If laws like this do not qualify under that category, could you give me an example of what would, or specifically tell me why a licensing/registration law would not qualify.

[Separatist Peoples]

The hole which Rita creates is solely for:

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

You need to meet all three of those criteria. This proposal does not meet the last criterion, which must engage with the section in bold.

It would seem to me that by establishing licensing and registration, this regulation does aim to make sure guns are kept out of the hands of those who would “pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action”. If laws like this do not qualify under that category, could you give me an example of what would, or specifically tell me why a licensing/registration law would not qualify.

"Incorrect. Imminent lawless action is an action, contrary to the law, that is about to happen. Not that may happen in the unsure future, but about to happen. That means permitting laws like temporary restraining orders, not licensing on the general public."

[Frankrussenstein]

Okay. Then for the time being, I’ll put a bill like this on hold. Thank you for all of your input. I’ll try to look for contradictions like this before I write a proposal next time.

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Incorrect. Imminent lawless action is an action, contrary to the law, that is about to happen. Not that may happen in the unsure future, but about to happen. That means permitting laws like temporary restraining orders, not licensing on the general public."

I would have said this, basically.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Incorrect. Imminent lawless action is an action, contrary to the law, that is about to happen. Not that may happen in the unsure future, but about to happen. That means permitting laws like temporary restraining orders, not licensing on the general public."

OC: Imminent Lawless action? Seriously? An action is either lawful or unlawful. A lawless action would effectively be an action upon which no law has been passed or proglumated, therefore making said action lawful under basic common law. Not everyone here is American or fully versed in Brandenburg vs Ohio.

IC: If one is making public statements contrary to to peace or good public order, they should definitely be restrained from acquiring weapons in order to make good on those statements until they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they do not intend to use those weapons to carry out actions. Now that being stated, we do not in any way believe that the international community needs to be creating those regulations. This would be a sovereign matter for national governments to legislate upon.

"Fortunately, member states have plenty of room to regulate. Nationally."

Ooc: I have no idea what your ooc aside is meant to accomplish.

[Bananaistan]

OC: Imminent Lawless action? Seriously? An action is either lawful or unlawful. A lawless action would effectively be an action upon which no law has been passed or proglumated, therefore making said action lawful under basic common law. Not everyone here is American or fully versed in Brandenburg vs Ohio.

IC: If one is making public statements contrary to to peace or good public order, they should definitely be restrained from acquiring weapons in order to make good on those statements until they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they do not intend to use those weapons to carry out actions. Now that being stated, we do not in any way believe that the international community needs to be creating those regulations. This would be a sovereign matter for national governments to legislate upon.

"Fortunately, member states have plenty of room to regulate. Nationally."

Ooc: I have no idea what your ooc aside is meant to accomplish.

OOC: It's the difference between the ordinary meanings of the words unlawful and lawless, and how "imminent lawless action" appears to be an American legal term. There is a difference between the two words. Lawless action is not necessarily action contrary to the law, and could be merely reckless action as opposed to outright illegal action. However, I'm not at all sure that this is relevant. In practice the difference is immaterial. The above proposal, and indeed any that I have seen that contradicts GAR#399, no more prevents imminent reckless action than it does imminent illegal action.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The big thing is the imminence on the action. It has to be a regulation that in fact prevents something from happening right then.

[Araraukar]

The big thing is the imminence on the action. It has to be a regulation that in fact prevents something from happening right then.

OOC: Similar to how a liqueur store can refuse to sell you alcohol if there's a bunch of kids outside that someone has warned the shopkeeper are trying to get people to buy them alcohol, and you've been spotted taking money from them? (And yes this has happened in real life where I have actually witnessed the events.)

[The New California Republic]

1. Establishes the World Office of Gun Legislation and Registration (henceforth referred to in this legislation as “WOGLAR”)

OOC: Against, until that horrible acronym is changed. I mean, it sounds like a nasty fungal foot disease. "What is the diagnosis doc?", "I'm sorry, your feet have contracted Woglar. It is usually contracted at public swimming pools"...

[Liberimery]

Who would have access to this registry? Gun ownership in the Democratic States of Liberimery has never involved a registry for private ownership. One of the benefits to this is that if the list is available to the criminal element, then thieves will know which house to rob that will procure a new black market firearm which can sell for a high price on the black market. How will this list prevent that from happening?

[Grays Harbor]

Who would have access to this registry? Gun ownership in the Democratic States of Liberimery has never involved a registry for private ownership. One of the benefits to this is that if the list is available to the criminal element, then thieves will know which house to rob that will procure a new black market firearm which can sell for a high price on the black market. How will this list prevent that from happening?

It is necessary because it is a list, a list of all guns, and guns are bad, and people who want to own bad guns are bad for wanting to own guns, and if there is a list then nobody would need to own bad guns, and if there are no guns there will be no crime, and everybody will live in a peaceful land with unicorns and a harp. That is why we need a list.

[Terra Novae Libero]

"The government of Terra Novae Libero vows to fight against this proposition. Our guns, our privacy, our defense.

We will never tolerate those who would remove our self-defense.

We will never give any international organization information so critical to our continued freedom.

We will never violate the essential freedoms of our citizens.

We say no to this proposed WOGLAR, and encourage you all to do the same."

-Francis Johnson, Ambassador to the World Assembly

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: this has clearly been dropped.

[Frankrussenstein]

This draft has been dropped. However, I genuinely do not understand why so many of you interpret an attempt to make sure those who are too dangerous to possess a gun as attempting to take your guns away from you. Could any of you specifically tell me what about registration, education, and licensing takes away your ability to protect yourself?

[Aclion]

This draft has been dropped. However, I genuinely do not understand why so many of you interpret an attempt to make sure those who are too dangerous to possess a gun as attempting to take your guns away from you. Could any of you specifically tell me what about registration, education, and licensing takes away your ability to protect yourself?

I suggest you ask in generals gun control megathread. For myself, I understand that it is far easier to go around seizing things, legally or otherwise, when you have a list of people who have them.

[Separatist Peoples]

This draft has been dropped. However, I genuinely do not understand why so many of you interpret an attempt to make sure those who are too dangerous to possess a gun as attempting to take your guns away from you. Could any of you specifically tell me what about registration, education, and licensing takes away your ability to protect yourself?

Aclion is right. If there is no draft, you no longer are on a topic proper for the GA. If you want to discuss the merits of gun control oocly, General is the forum to go to.