[DRAFT] Safe Schools Act

[Cretox State]

"Crime and violence involving firearms is undeniably a pervasive issue in many WA member-nations. In areas where gun-related violence is especially prevalent, and local crime exacerbated by such, citizens and foreign visitors may fear to travel through these areas or conduct business there due to concern for their own safety, hurting commerce and the public good. Parents may resist sending their children to school for the same reasons. This proposal is written with the goal of tackling the issue of irresponsible and dangerous firearm use in school zones. The occurrence of violent crime, specifically gun-based violent crime, in school zones, manifesting in bloody horrors such as school shootings, irrefutably results in a decline in the quality of education in member-nations, adversely impacting commerce and the public good. Regional governments and school systems often find it nigh-impossible to to handle gun-related crime on their own. Even areas that take a hard stance against gun violence can find their efforts ineffective due in part to the failure or inability of other areas to take similar measures.

While this proposal will not stop gun-related violence in schools (nor is it intended to), it will provide governments and law-abiding citizens with recourse when potentially dangerous incidents do arise, and further the World Assembly's mission of bettering the standard of living within the nations under its aegis and serving the public interest."

OOC: First draft of a proposal restricting firearm use/carrying in school zones. As always, any feedback is appreciated.

Safe Schools Act

Category: Regulation
Area of Effect: Safety

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the key role education plays in the advancement of modern society through ensuring that people are equipped to play their part in an ever-changing world;

Understanding that firearms, when used responsibly, are an important tool in protecting individuals and nations, in addition to their recreational applications;

Noting that the safety of schools and other educational institutions is essential to providing a quality education to students;

Aware that the possession of firearms in school zones by unauthorized individuals and those unaffiliated with law enforcement undermines the quality of education, is dangerous to the safety of a nation’s youth, and carries an implicit threat of imminent lawless action;

Wishing to address this threat of imminent lawless action, and provide member-nations and their law-abiding citizens with legal recourse in the event of antisocial behavior in school zones with regards to firearms, without infringing on the use of firearms by authorized individuals such as law enforcement, hereby:

1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution:
   1. A "destructive device" as:
      1. Any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas bomb, grenade, mine, or similar device, whether or not attached to a propellant charge; or
      2. Any combination of parts designed or intended for use in converting a given device into a destructive device, or from which a destructive device may be readily assembled;
   2. A "firearm" as:
      1. Any weapon which will, is designed to, or may readily be converted to expel a projectile through the action of an explosive;
      2. The frame of any such weapon; or
      3. Any destructive device;
   3. A "school" as any public, parochial, or private institution whose primary purpose is the education of children, or any institution of higher learning;
   4. A "school zone" as the area within a school, or on the legally recognized grounds of a school;
2. Declares it unlawful for any individual to:
   1. Knowingly possess a firearm in a school zone;
   2. Knowingly or with disregard for the safety of another to discharge, or attempt to discharge, a firearm in a school zone;
3. Clarifies:
   1. Nothing in this resolution applies to the possession or discharge of a firearm:
      1. On any property not part of a school zone;
      2. By an individual for use in a program approved by a school;
      3. By an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school and said individual or an authorized representative of said individual;
      4. By a law enforcement officer acting in their official capacity;
   2. Nothing in this resolution applies to the possession of an unloaded firearm in a secure and locked container, or on a secure and locked firearms rack attached to a motor vehicle;
   3. Nothing in this resolution applies to the possession of a firearm by an individual traversing a school zone, so long as said individual's entry into the school zone is authorized by school authorities;
   4. Nothing in this resolution shall be construed to prevent national, international, or other governing bodies from enacting regulation regarding school zones or firearms in general, so long as said regulation does not contradict any part of this resolution;
4. Urges member-nations to take action regulating the use of firearms when that use poses an imminent threat of lawless action.

[Honeydewistania]

"Is there not a better category for this?"

[Kenmoria]

“Clause 2a needs some exceptions. For example, police restraining a possible school shooter should definitely be exempted.”

[Cretox State]

"Is there not a better category for this?"

OOC: "Moral Decency" was suggested, though I feel that doesn't quite describe what I'm going for here. I assume they got rid of "Gun Control"?

“Clause 2a needs some exceptions. For example, police restraining a possible school shooter should definitely be exempted.”

"Isn't that covered by 3a(iv)?"

[Bananaistan]

OOC: See GAR#399, section 5.

[Kenmoria]

"Is there not a better category for this?"

OOC: "Moral Decency" was suggested, though I feel that doesn't quite describe what I'm going for here. I assume they got rid of "Gun Control"?

(OOC: Gun control has indeed been removed. I would recommend going for moral decency, as that category matches most closely what you are trying to do: restricting civil rights in order to achieve a positive moral outcome. It’s not a perfect fit, but I think it works better than furtherment of democracy.”

“Clause 2a needs some exceptions. For example, police restraining a possible school shooter should definitely be exempted.”

"Isn't that covered by 3a(iv)?"

“Oops, so it is. That teaches me not to speak before reading the whole draft. I do have another piece of advice, which is to place clause 1b before clause 1a, as the current second clause is used in the definition of the first.”

[Cretox State]

OOC: See GAR#399, section 5.

"Assures member nations of the exclusive right to determine purely internal arms trading and firearm policy, excepting... 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: I would argue that individuals not excepted by clause 3 of this one do "pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action," as does technically anyone possessing a firearm in a school zone. Unless I'm misunderstanding something?

[Morover]

"What is the reasoning for 300 meters being used? That seems like an arbitrary number that can instead be replaced with the reasoning for that number being used."

OOC: I'd agree that Moral Decency is a better category for this, though Regulation - Safety may be better still.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: See GAR#399, section 5.

"Assures member nations of the exclusive right to determine purely internal arms trading and firearm policy, excepting... 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: I would argue that individuals not excepted by clause 3 of this one do "pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action," as does technically anyone possessing a firearm in a school zone. Unless I'm misunderstanding something?

OOC: So somebody having a gun in their pocket 301 metres away from a school is tickety boo but if they happen to wander one metre in a particular direction they suddenly become an unhinged loon who's a danger to all and sundry?

I don't buy it. This is a blanket regulation affecting everyone regardless of their likelihood to preform imminent lawless action and is precisely the type of gun control regulation that GAR#399 is designed to block. (GAR#399 is designed to block every single gun related proposal I've ever seen in this forum.)

[Cretox State]

I do have another piece of advice, which is to place clause 1b before clause 1a, as the current second clause is used in the definition of the first.”

"Done."

(OOC: Gun control has indeed been removed. I would recommend going for moral decency, as that category matches most closely what you are trying to do: restricting civil rights in order to achieve a positive moral outcome. It’s not a perfect fit, but I think it works better than furtherment of democracy.”

OOC: I suppose I could technically put this under "Social Justice" as well (since not getting shot technically works to "reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare"), but Moral Decency is probably the better choice. In that case, I'll also rewrite the preamble.

[Cretox State]

OOC: So somebody having a gun in their pocket 301 metres away from a school is tickety boo but if they happen to wander one metre in a particular direction they suddenly become an unhinged loon who's a danger to all and sundry?

I don't buy it. This is a blanket regulation affecting everyone regardless of their likelihood to preform imminent lawless action and is precisely the type of gun control regulation that GAR#399 is designed to block. (GAR#399 is designed to block every single gun related proposal I've ever seen in this forum.)

OOC: I see your point. If I remove the distance, then it'll be restricted to school grounds (and what good reason would someone not previously authorized by the school or part of law enforcement have to physically enter a school with a gun in their pocket?). I could add in a qualifier regarding "likelihood to preform imminent lawless action," but I'm hesitant to do so unless absolutely necessary.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: So somebody having a gun in their pocket 301 metres away from a school is tickety boo but if they happen to wander one metre in a particular direction they suddenly become an unhinged loon who's a danger to all and sundry?

I don't buy it. This is a blanket regulation affecting everyone regardless of their likelihood to preform imminent lawless action and is precisely the type of gun control regulation that GAR#399 is designed to block. (GAR#399 is designed to block every single gun related proposal I've ever seen in this forum.)

OOC: I see your point. If I remove the distance, then it'll be restricted to school grounds (and what good reason would someone not previously authorized by the school or part of law enforcement have to physically enter a school with a gun in their pocket?). I could add in a qualifier regarding "likelihood to preform imminent lawless action," but I'm hesitant to do so unless absolutely necessary.

OOC: I don't want to rain on your parade but, eh, there's no way around it. There's no way around GAR#399, section 5 unless the whole thing is specifically aimed at someone who "[poses] a danger of performing imminent lawless action." My 1/6 of GenSec would be that a legal proposal would amount to no more than "if you're about to starting shooting up the school, you're not allowed to have a gun in the school". I can't see any legal blanket prohibition of guns in any particular location because the mere presence of someone in a particular location is no indication of their intention to imminently perform some illegal action.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: Why is a poison gas bomb defined as a firearm?

Also, this would seem to ban schools of all kinds from having chemistry/physics labs and running any experiments. A metal cylinder filled with highpressure flammable gas pretty much equals a bomb if mistreated or subjected to high temperatures. And such tend to be needed to have any kind of open flame in lab conditions.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I see your point. If I remove the distance, then it'll be restricted to school grounds (and what good reason would someone not previously authorized by the school or part of law enforcement have to physically enter a school with a gun in their pocket?). I could add in a qualifier regarding "likelihood to preform imminent lawless action," but I'm hesitant to do so unless absolutely necessary.

OOC: I don't want to rain on your parade but, eh, there's no way around it. There's no way around GAR#399, section 5 unless the whole thing is specifically aimed at someone who "[poses] a danger of performing imminent lawless action." My 1/6 of GenSec would be that a legal proposal would amount to no more than "if you're about to starting shooting up the school, you're not allowed to have a gun in the school". I can't see any legal blanket prohibition of guns in any particular location because the mere presence of someone in a particular location is no indication of their intention to imminently perform some illegal action.

OOC: This is my read as a member of GenSec.

As a player, I don't see this as a bug, but a feature. No matter how wise this policy is when enacted by a Standard Real World Liberal Democracy, its entirely ludicrous for a WA nation in the multiverse. Theres simply no international utility to this regulation: No one nation is benefited from compliance by another.

Further, I question the innate human right involved. There is, perhaps, a limited interpretation that implicates the right to be free from murder. But taken writ large, it is merely the right to have certain objects a certain distance from a subset of society. This does not strike me as an innate human right. Were it not illegal to my eyes, I would not be able to support it.