[DRAFT] Against Further Domestic Abuse

[The Nation of the People of the Nation]

The World Assembly;

WORRIED that no legislation exists to prevent those who carry out domestic abuse from owning a firearm.

CONCERNED that they might use them to carry out further abuse.

ACKNOWLEDGING that firearms regulations can be contentious national issues.

FINDING that there are no rational reasons for those convicted of domestic abuse to be able to own a firearm.

RESOLVED that domestic abusers should not be able to possess or purchase a firearm.

Hereby;

1. Defines a "Convicted Domestic Abuser" as any legal person convicted of abusing, neglecting, or otherwise significantly harming members of their family, including but not limited to, spouses, children, parents, as well as other dependents and partners.

2. Prohibits any legal entity from selling a firearm to a Convicted Domestic Abuser.

3. Mandates that member nations remove firearms from the possession of those convicted of domestic abuse.

[Imperium Anglorum]

GA 399 "Assures member nations of the exclusive right to determine purely internal arms trading and firearm policy, excepting: ... [among other things] future regulations which seek to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action."

[Atheris]

Like IA said, there's a problem in this with GA#399.

[Astrobolt]

OOC: I'm not seeing a contradiction. #399 allows the WA to intervene in order to "prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action." I would make the case that allowing domestic abusers to have firearms means that there is still of danger of imminent lawless action, as firearms can be used in domestic incidents.

[Maowi]

OOC: I'm not seeing a contradiction. #399 allows the WA to intervene in order to "prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action." I would make the case that allowing domestic abusers to have firearms means that there is still of danger of imminent lawless action, as firearms can be used in domestic incidents.

OOC: This is my thinking too - this would seem to me exactly the sort of thing the GAR 399 exception is supposed to cover.

[Imperium Anglorum]

It's not imminent.

[Maowi]

It's not imminent.

OOC: I'd argue that in many cases it would be imminent. I guess it's complicated because in many ways the exact risk level of reoffending depends on the efficacy of the member state's punitive or rehabilitative systems, but I think having the status of a convicted domestic abuser would be sufficient cause for being in danger of performing imminent lawless action. Otherwise, I'm not sure what would qualify as being in danger of performing imminent lawless action.

[Kenmoria]

It's not imminent.

OOC: I'd argue that in many cases it would be imminent. I guess it's complicated because in many ways the exact risk level of reoffending depends on the efficacy of the member state's punitive or rehabilitative systems, but I think having the status of a convicted domestic abuser would be sufficient cause for being in danger of performing imminent lawless action. Otherwise, I'm not sure what would qualify as being in danger of performing imminent lawless action.

(OOC: Although it may be imminent in a lot of cases, I would argue that the danger would not be imminent in the vast majority. Of convicted domestic abusers, most would hopefully no longer be in a situation in which domestic abuse would be possible, in which case lawless action would not be considered imminent.

Imminent lawless action would be a situation where a gun was sold to a domestic abuser, who is currently perpetrating domestic abuse against someone. If a domestic abuser has been convicted, that would presumably no longer be the case.)

[Astrobolt]

Hereby;

1. Defines a "Convicted Domestic Abuser" as any legal person convicted of abusing, neglecting, or otherwise significantly harming members of their family, including but not limited to, spouses, children, parents, as well as other dependents and partners.

2. Prohibits any legal entity from selling a firearm to a convicted domestic abuser.

OOC: Clause two should have 'convicted domestic abuser' all in caps order to match the definition clause.

[The Nation of the People of the Nation]

Hereby;

1. Defines a "Convicted Domestic Abuser" as any legal person convicted of abusing, neglecting, or otherwise significantly harming members of their family, including but not limited to, spouses, children, parents, as well as other dependents and partners.

2. Prohibits any legal entity from selling a firearm to a convicted domestic abuser.

OOC: Clause two should have 'convicted domestic abuser' all in caps order to match the definition clause.

Fixed

[Bananaistan]

GA 399 "Assures member nations of the exclusive right to determine purely internal arms trading and firearm policy, excepting: ... [among other things] future regulations which seek to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action."

OOC: My 1/6 gensec view is that this is correct. As currently stated the proposal contradicts GAR#399.

[The Nation of the People of the Nation]

Bumping this due to discussion in this thread that clause 5 might have no effect. I plan on moving ahead in the near term.

[Tinhampton]

Tinhampton continues to remain opposed to any international legislation that requires "gun grabs" for any reason.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

Bumping this due to discussion in this thread that clause 5 might have no effect. I plan on moving ahead in the near term.

If you read a little further in that thread, at least 1 member of GenSec states you still need to comply with section 5 and this draft is therefore, probably still illegal.