NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT] "Right to Self-Defense" v3

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Maletora
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 21
Founded: May 26, 2018
New York Times Democracy

[DRAFT] "Right to Self-Defense" v3

Postby Maletora » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:36 am

Recognizing the schism that exists within the General Assembly in regards to the second clause, and identifying several flaws within the second version of the Self-Defense proposal, we of Maletora here-by establish a drafting board for the third installment of the Right of Self-Defense.

The main goals that this resolution should establish, are a clear definition of the self defense clause, and firmly establish rules of what the powers the GA and Sovereign Nations within can utilize to put this proposal into play.

As such, we have already four tenets that we feel are well established, but as of yet to be drafted into a rough draft, and we would like the GA's input on the matter.

Category: Civil Rights
Strength: Mild

Recognizing the right of all individuals to protect themselves, from all threats foreign or domestic,

Identifying that most WA Nations have no properly established clause to allow their citizens these protections,

Accepts that state established lawful forces are not always present to unlawful actions being committed against individuals,

Establishes that a WA Member Nation's sovereign law is held tantamount to this resolution, and that nothing in this resolution is allowance for any form of infraction or voidance of a Member Nation's sovereign law or by definition, of their law enforcement, state officials and military personnel.

Urges the Assembly establish legislation to grant citizens within their nations the right to self defense within Member Nations' established sovereign law,

The World Assembly:

1) Defines self-defense as a legal countermeasure an individual may take to guard the health and well-being of oneself, friends, family, either related to them by blood or law, and/or property from harm within an unlawful action being taken against the individual through criminal actions on part of the person or group actively committing the unlawful act.

2) Further defines arms as any specifically designed weapon, device or object, used in a manner with intent to cause damage and/or bodily harm, by the individual enacting the right to self-defense against the person or group in the process actively committing the unlawful act against them.

3) Affirms the defense of oneself under the definition of excessive duress, within applicable and reasonable force on part of the individual enacting the right to self-defense, stressing that lethal force only being utilized against the person/group committing the unlawful infraction, provided the situation therein has escalated to a life threatening one.

3a) Recognizes that an individual may exercise the use of lethal force against a home intruder, and guards them from criminal action being taken against them that are applicable within the bounds of a WA Member Nation's sovereign law.

3b) Establishes that self-defense can be used against lawful forces, such as state officials, law enforcement, and/or military personnel, as long as these forces were not acting as expected to and not operating within the bounds of a WA Member Nation's sovereign law and are committing an unlawful infraction against the individual,

3b-a) Clarifies that this clause cannot be used against a lawful force who, by manner of action within the established laws, is advancing their authority as is allowed within, affirming that only those lawful forces acting outside the bounds of their professional duty are subject to this resolution as permissible within a WA Member Nation's sovereign law.

4) Establish the crimes that self-defense can be used in a case, and subject to a WA Member Nation’s sovereign law, and only in the event said unlawful infraction is physical against the individual, as such said unlawful infractions include but not limited to, robbery, armed and unarmed, battery, assault, and/or attempted murder.


Establishes the citizens right to protect oneself from any unlawful or illegal act within a WA Member nation's sovereign laws against another party currently committing the transgression against the civilian.

Establishes the definition of arms not being limited to the use of firearms (guns) swords, or other similar weapons of that nature and allows tools, like screw drivers or hammers, or objects, like rocks or statues, to be covered under this definition

Establishes that self-defense is applicable with reasonable force on part of the individual, pointing out that lethal force be only used when the situation turns to a critical life or death priority, and is not legal grounds for an act of committing homicide without.
Possible sub-clause being established to allow for a citizen to utilize lethal force in the event of a home intrusion event by an unlawful force.

Only establishes that within the bindings of an individual WA Member sovereign power, a citizen may be able to use the self-defense right against lawful forces if said forces are not currently acting within the Member States sovereign law, ie. A cop brutally assaulting an innocent in a drunken rage.

Defines self defense as the means through which an individual will use what means deemed necessary and lawful within the given circumstances and/or situation therein, to protect their person, family (related to them by blood or law), another individual in distress, and/or property from an illicit or unlawful act by a person and/or group engaged in an unlawful act against the individual.

Defines "arms" as any weapon, tool and/or object being used in a manner that will cause bodily injury and/or death of the person/group that is engaged with said weapon, tool, and/or object within a lawful manner that is not excessive to the situation given, further stressing that lethal force only be taken if the individual's life and/or family and/or friends are in danger of lethal harm being committed against them.

Allows the defense of oneself under the definition of excessive duress, and within applicable and reasonable force to be undertaken to prevent further unlawful transgression on part of the person/group actively committing an unlawful act against the individual, stressing that lethal force should only be taken if the individual's life is directly threatened by the person/group by means of willful bodily action, or means of armament.

Allows self defense to be taken against local law enforcement, state official, or military personnel by the individual if said forces are not acting cordially within the bindings of the nations sovereign law and/or utilizing brutal/excessive force against said individual when no unlawful act on part of the individual is being, or has been, committed, or if the individual is being compliant with said lawful forces.
Last edited by Maletora on Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:48 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Alexander Phoenix is the head of the National Sovereignty Party, Owner of Phoenix Technological Enterprises and President of Maletora

User avatar
Pilipinas and Malaya
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 142
Founded: Jun 23, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Pilipinas and Malaya » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:38 am

We need a repeal first.
Honorary Member-State of The Srivijayan Consortium

Overview,read please.
HAIL VOOPEERIA!

Member of Europe
(-_Q)
Kurobuta Pork Katsu,Best Pork Katsu! Eleanor of Aquitaine just chilling there, gaining cities, while the world is on fire.

The K-Pop section in the 2018 rewind is the most horrible part in there. Yes,my nation DOES represent most of my views,deal with it.
Pilipinas and Malayan News: Wi-Fi that downloads the entire Library of Congress in 5.9 secs developed in China|PAM stocks at all-time high in 14 years|Museum Complex to be built in Manila.

User avatar
Nueva Rico
Secretary
 
Posts: 29
Founded: Feb 02, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Nueva Rico » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:39 am

It will not pass with clause 4. Against. Otherwise good start. Best of luck to you.
Last edited by Nueva Rico on Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Maletora
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 21
Founded: May 26, 2018
New York Times Democracy

Postby Maletora » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:48 am

Pilipinas and Malaya wrote:We need a repeal first.

Considering that the first one was just shot down, there's no need to wait for one. Unless we are missing something here.
Alexander Phoenix is the head of the National Sovereignty Party, Owner of Phoenix Technological Enterprises and President of Maletora

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12351
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:42 am

OOC: Why can't this be left for nations to decide for themselves?

Also, category and strength/AoE?
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
New Bremerton
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 162
Founded: Jul 20, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby New Bremerton » Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:43 am

This early draft, in its current form, violates the Castle doctrine in most N.B. states, which allows homeowners the right to escalate to deadly force against any home intruder with no duty to retreat, even if there is no imminent threat to life or limb. Guns, however, are completely banned in New Bremerton outside of the police force and armed forces.

AGAINST. If this draft is revised, we will consider changing our prospective vote.
The Holy Republic of New Bremerton
Region: The North Pacific
General Assembly: IC
Security Council: OOC

"Liberi Fatali"

This nation does not use NSStats.

User avatar
Marxist Germany
Attaché
 
Posts: 87
Founded: Jun 07, 2018
New York Times Democracy

Postby Marxist Germany » Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:02 pm

Even though I do support this, I feel that this would never pass in the current state of the GA
"Marxist" no longer applies to this country. This country was made back when I was a commie.

User avatar
Maletora
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 21
Founded: May 26, 2018
New York Times Democracy

Postby Maletora » Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:04 pm

New Bremerton wrote:This early draft, in its current form, violates the Castle doctrine in most N.B. states, which allows homeowners the right to escalate to deadly force against any home intruder with no duty to retreat, even if there is no imminent threat to life or limb. Guns, however, are completely banned in New Bremerton outside of the police force and armed forces.

AGAINST. If this draft is revised, we will consider changing our prospective vote.

Mmm inresting. Do you have any additional info on this Castle Doctrine?
Alexander Phoenix is the head of the National Sovereignty Party, Owner of Phoenix Technological Enterprises and President of Maletora

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 13783
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:45 pm

Maletora wrote:
New Bremerton wrote:This early draft, in its current form, violates the Castle doctrine in most N.B. states, which allows homeowners the right to escalate to deadly force against any home intruder with no duty to retreat, even if there is no imminent threat to life or limb. Guns, however, are completely banned in New Bremerton outside of the police force and armed forces.

AGAINST. If this draft is revised, we will consider changing our prospective vote.

Mmm inresting. Do you have any additional info on this Castle Doctrine?

"The premise is that any fatal shooting by a homeowner within their home of an individual who is not a resident of the home is presumptively considered self defense, and therefore not murder."

What's the problem with lawyer jokes?
Lawyer's don't think they're funny, and no one else thinks they're jokes.

Third year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Maletora
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 21
Founded: May 26, 2018
New York Times Democracy

Postby Maletora » Fri Feb 08, 2019 5:55 pm

Separatist Peoples wrote:
Maletora wrote:Mmm inresting. Do you have any additional info on this Castle Doctrine?

"The premise is that any fatal shooting by a homeowner within their home of an individual who is not a resident of the home is presumptively considered self defense, and therefore not murder."

Mmhmm... that sounds like it should be a subclause under the 3rd established clause. We shall deliberate.
Alexander Phoenix is the head of the National Sovereignty Party, Owner of Phoenix Technological Enterprises and President of Maletora

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19496
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Sat Feb 09, 2019 12:14 am

What do you intend to submit as proposal text?
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
Kenmoria
Senator
 
Posts: 3788
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Sat Feb 09, 2019 2:23 am

(OOC: You need to clear up your OP; I currently am having trouble fluidly reading the proposal. Also, if you are planning to use clauses from the original proposal in yours, don’t, that would be illegal for plagiarism.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12351
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sat Feb 09, 2019 6:35 am

OOC: This hasn't been answered yet:
Araraukar wrote:OOC: Why can't this be left for nations to decide for themselves?
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Maletora
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 21
Founded: May 26, 2018
New York Times Democracy

Postby Maletora » Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:08 am

Araraukar wrote:OOC: This hasn't been answered yet:
Araraukar wrote:OOC: Why can't this be left for nations to decide for themselves?

Is it not for the WA to establish rulings that would help promote civil rights globally?
Alexander Phoenix is the head of the National Sovereignty Party, Owner of Phoenix Technological Enterprises and President of Maletora

User avatar
Aclion
Minister
 
Posts: 3062
Founded: Apr 12, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Aclion » Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:20 am

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Why can't this be left for nations to decide for themselves?

Also, category and strength/AoE?

Because the right to life is a fundamental human right, and cannot be restored once taken.
Weiner - Cummings 2020
The left-right spectrum; an analogy.
XKI: Recruiter, TITO member
TEP: WA Executive Staff member
Forest: Cartographer
Oatland: Caesar, Cartographer

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12351
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:34 pm

Maletora wrote:Is it not for the WA to establish rulings that would help promote civil rights globally?

IC: ""Your right to swing your fist ends where the other person's face begins", ambassador. You would want to mandate allowing one person to violate another's rights in a neverending cycle. This is not something that can be acceptable. Though the wording is so muddled in places that it is hard to know what exactly you want to make happen."

OOC: One of the reasons it failed was that people felt it should be left to nations to decide for themselves, not a one-size-fits-all thing dictated on from high.

Aclion wrote:Because the right to life is a fundamental human right, and cannot be restored once taken.

OOC: If you're advocating for banning death penalty, you're on the wrong thread.
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Maletora
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 21
Founded: May 26, 2018
New York Times Democracy

Postby Maletora » Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:46 pm

Araraukar wrote:
Maletora wrote:Is it not for the WA to establish rulings that would help promote civil rights globally?

IC: "You would want to mandate allowing one person to violate another's rights in a neverending cycle. This is not something that can be acceptable. Though the wording is so muddled in places that it is hard to know what exactly you want to make happen."

Not at all what out intention is for this resolution. What we are mandating for is the efficacy for citizens to defend themselves only when provoked by manner of action on part of another individual in the event of a physical attack. Simply put, we are not counting verbal assault as something that is covered in this mandate, only proper physical attacks. It would be prudent if you could help distinguish this point better.

OOC: One of the reasons it failed was that people felt it should be left to nations to decide for themselves, not a one-size-fits-all thing dictated on from high.


While we do value and respect every nation's right to defend and guard their sovereignty, we cannot in good conscience allow injustices of other citizens acting in their basic right to life and as such defend themselves, especially when the tour other nations. We do value sovereignty, but we also value the lives of our constituents. We simply wish to give nations the tools to allow their citizens to guard themselves.
*EDIT*
OOC: I could say the same about the recent resolution that is currently at vote, especially since there are in game policies that can be applied or retracted within a nation depending on how you pass judgement on your issues. This one I feel is a bit more softer in the sense that unlike the Gender Minorities vote, this wont have any direct effect on those same policies that are put in place through the issue system. Unless there is something that I am getting completely wrong about that mechanic.
Last edited by Maletora on Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:26 am, edited 2 times in total.
Alexander Phoenix is the head of the National Sovereignty Party, Owner of Phoenix Technological Enterprises and President of Maletora

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12351
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:46 am

Maletora wrote:
Araraukar wrote:OOC

While we do value and respect every nation's right to defend and guard their sovereignty

OOC: Please answer to OOC bits in OOC (out of character - you, the player, not the ambassador).
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Maletora
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 21
Founded: May 26, 2018
New York Times Democracy

Postby Maletora » Sun Feb 10, 2019 10:37 am

Araraukar wrote:
Maletora wrote:While we do value and respect every nation's right to defend and guard their sovereignty

OOC: Please answer to OOC bits in OOC (out of character - you, the player, not the ambassador).

OOC: Right. My apologies, but my point still stands.
Alexander Phoenix is the head of the National Sovereignty Party, Owner of Phoenix Technological Enterprises and President of Maletora

User avatar
Arasi Luvasa
Diplomat
 
Posts: 553
Founded: Aug 29, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Arasi Luvasa » Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:24 pm

"Against, there are a plethora of cultural values that cannot be accounted for in a single resolution. Honestly, if you want to ensure that all nations have laws regarding self-deffence please just mandate that these laws be set and give an outline of what should be considered neccesary. This should be very broad if it is even legislated upon by the world assembly."
Ambassador Ariela Galadriel Maria Mirase
37 year old Arch-bishop of the Arasi Christian Church (also the youngest ever arch-bishop and fifth woman in the church hierarchy). An attractive but stern woman with a strict adherence to religious and moral ethical codes, also somewhat of an optimist. She was recently appointed to the position following the election of Adrian Midnight to the position of Patriarch.

User avatar
Hatzisland
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 103
Founded: Feb 05, 2019
New York Times Democracy

Hatzisland in its support of this plan.

Postby Hatzisland » Sun Feb 10, 2019 2:12 pm

In the opinion of the government of Hatzisland, the first version of this plan should have passed. We are completely behind you, and encourage you to keep pushing to pass this. You have our support!

From,
George Reagan
World Assembly Ambassador for Hatzisland

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12351
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:56 am

Maletora wrote:OOC: Right. My apologies, but my point still stands.

OOC: Not only does your point still make no sense (what does the same-sex marriage one have to do with yours???), but you still haven't addressed why nations shouldn't be allowed to decide for themselves where the line goes for what is acceptable as self-defence and what isn't.
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Mockia
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 22
Founded: Dec 27, 2017
Father Knows Best State

Postby Mockia » Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:28 am

I support, as we need a right to self defense. However, <some people> want to take our guns on NationStates and ban them.
(I'm not referring to anything racist, because I'm not using triple parentheses.)
Largest source of Pineapple on Pizza in the world

User avatar
Christian Confederation
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 162
Founded: Dec 12, 2018
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Christian Confederation » Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:32 am

Y'all need to keep up the good work. Some want to restrict us but it's every man, woman, and childs God given right to defend themselves.

God bless and good luck.
Founder of the moderate alliance
Open to new members, and embassy's.
My telagram box is always open for productive conversation.
IRL political views center right/ right.

User avatar
The New Nordic Union
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 120
Founded: Jul 08, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The New Nordic Union » Tue Feb 12, 2019 2:04 pm

Mockia wrote:I support, as we need a right to self defense. However, <some people> want to take our guns on NationStates and ban them.
(I'm not referring to anything racist, because I'm not using triple parentheses.)


'These two topics are unrelated, one can defend themselves without a gun.'
Permanent Representative of the Nordic Union to the World Assembly: Katrin við Keldu


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Leinahtan, Stoskavanya, United Massachusetts, Walenstein

Advertisement

Remove ads