[Draft] Repeal: "Child Firearm Safety Act"

[Outer Sparta]

OOC: I have done both IC and OOC here. As for the draft itself- GAR #235 uses vague and flawed language to an extent that its provisions can very easily be interpreted in ways that the author didn't intend.

How exactly would you know how Cowardly Pacificts intended provisions to be interpreted?

Also, how is this not legislating within a repeal:

Noting that the Child Firearm Safety Act does not define "firearm", potentially including:
Recreational soft air and paintball guns,
Signaling guns, and
Pellet guns for pest control,

Seems to me like the WA is now defining what a firearm is, within a repeal.

Since it defines what potential definitions of "firearm" would be, then it looks like under the assumption it's legislating for some ban or restriction on those items.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I have done both IC and OOC here. As for the draft itself- GAR #235 uses vague and flawed language to an extent that its provisions can very easily be interpreted in ways that the author didn't intend.

How exactly would you know how Cowardly Pacificts intended provisions to be interpreted?

Ooc: Authorial intent isn't relevant. Intent can be derived from textual cues.

Also, how is this not legislating within a repeal:

Noting that the Child Firearm Safety Act does not define "firearm", potentially including:
Recreational soft air and paintball guns,
Signaling guns, and
Pellet guns for pest control,

Seems to me like the WA is now defining what a firearm is, within a repeal.

This is a list of examples. Not of definitions. There is no such concern.

Edit:

Further to that, how is this not illegal based upon the fact it is nothing more than "this isn't defined, that isn't defined......" If this repeal goes through with these clauses intact, does that mean we can now make repeal arguments based solely upon nation sovereignty concerns, because that is exactly what this here repeal boils down to.

Failure to address a topic adequately is not an appeal to national sovereignty. It addresses flaws specific to the text. These arguments aren't even a stretch. They're just wrong.

[Greater Cesnica]

"I have removed the clause critiquing the "eliminate" provision of the Act. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated!"

[Wallenburg]

"Your first argument regarding the lack of a definition of a firearm is nonsense. It relies on an extremely and uncolorably broad definition of the term that, by your own admission, is not laid out in the target resolution. Member states will interpret 'firearm' as it suits their state interests, almost universally to a degree more reasonable than this repeal suggests. Whether some absurdist backwater from Omicron Convenience XVII chooses to consider all explosive projectile tools of any form or function a 'firearm' is not of concern to any other member state.

"With regard to everything else, though, I am inclined to agree with this repeal. The restrictions laid out here are harmful to the security of everyday Wallenburgians, not least because of the additional constraints it puts upon the militias and army. Four years back, when I was in the 7th Armored Batallion liberating Aarport and Hanstein, operational effectiveness was severely limited by a lack of training for our youngest comrades. We had to put the kids who had just gotten the vote in the back with the supply column even when we needed them up at the front line. Repealing this would allow us to put them through proper combat training just that extra bit sooner."

[Greater Cesnica]

"Thank you Ambassador Ogenbond. I have removed the point regarding the lack of a definition for firearm. I appreciate your support for the remaining points!

Also, I have added a clause criticizing Article 5's wording for restricting providing a child with a firearm to just for educational purposes. I believe, and I think that most would agree with me, that a valid interest may exist in providing children with firearms for hunting, defensive, or recreational purposes, provided adequate training, familiarity, and supervision is present."

[Greater Cesnica]

"I have removed my prior point about a perceived restriction on the access of firearms to children, and instead replaced it with one that echoes the argument presented by Ambassador Ogenbond earlier."

[Bears Armed]

[box]Further concerned that the Act imposes unnecessary barriers upon the ability of militias and military forces to provide combat training to minors, thus posing a potential security risk to jurisdictions that would rely on trained minors to aid in combat operations,

GA Resolution #4, 'Restrictions on Child Labour' includes a clause that "Bans the participation of minors in armed conflict".

Also, how is this not legislating within a repeal:

Seems to me like the WA is now defining what a firearm is, within a repeal.

Since it defines what potential definitions of "firearm" would be, then it looks like under the assumption it's legislating for some ban or restriction on those items.

Seems to me that it isn't trying to legislate, it's just saying that some nations might interpret the term in that way... but such interpretations do seem fairly unlikely under 'reasonable nation' theory.

[Greater Cesnica]

[box]Further concerned that the Act imposes unnecessary barriers upon the ability of militias and military forces to provide combat training to minors, thus posing a potential security risk to jurisdictions that would rely on trained minors to aid in combat operations,

GA Resolution #4, 'Restrictions on Child Labour' includes a clause that "Bans the participation of minors in armed conflict".

"Thank you for finding that error. I meant for that clause to bring up individuals who were trained as minors."

[Bananaistan]

OOC: The first argument is all "it's not defined". Reasonable member states can reasonably figure this out themselves.

The second argument. When you're strongest argument is that the target prevents somebody from shoving a gun into the hands of a child in order to make them a child soldier, you have weak arguments. Incidentally, sections 4 and 5 cover this scenario. I'm struggling to see how this isn't an honest mistake.

I don't follow what you're saying in the third argument but it seems weak - see sections 4 and 5. If someone wants a child to have a firearm for their own safety, they need only train the kid in how to use it.