Page 1 of 2

[Draft] Repeal: "Child Firearm Safety Act"

PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:28 am
by Greater Cesnica
General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act" (Category: Gun Control; Decision: Tighten) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Noting that the Child Firearm Safety Act does not define "firearm", potentially including:
  • Recreational soft air and paintball guns,
  • Signalling guns, and
  • Pellet guns for pest control,
Recognizing that this ambiguity can lead to the enforcement of this Act where it would not be necessary, thus posing a detriment to various industries and activities that rely on the use of projectile-firing devices,

Concerned with the language used in the Act which can only be interpreted in a subjective manner, such as:
  • The use of the term "proper" when referring to supervision, firearm use, and firearm safety in Articles 4, 5, and 6; as thresholds for what constitutes "proper" etiquette and standards can vary,
  • The use of the phrase "who may regularly encounter a child" in Article 6, especially since the use of the word "may" removes any notion of certainty from this provision; which could lead to its application where children are not present around firearms, and
  • The use of the term "reasonable manner" in Article 3, as this nebulously defined standard can vary,
Regarding Article 3's requirement to "eliminate" the risk of injury or death to a child as unrealistic, as there is no way to truly eliminate the risk posed by any object to a child,

Believing that such "one-size-fits-all" approaches to firearms regulations mandated by an international body are inherently flawed and open to abuse and subjective application,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act".

PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:28 am
by Greater Cesnica
General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act" (Category: Gun Control; Decision: Tighten) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Acknowledging the sincere intentions behind the Child Firearm Safety Act,

Noting, however, that the Act fails to define the term "firearm", which could lead to the following items being considered a "firearm" for the purposes of this Act:
  • Airsoft guns used for recreational play,
  • Air guns used for pest and wildlife control,
  • Paintball guns used for recreational play, and
  • Flare guns used for signalling purposes,
Recognizing that Article 3 of the Act, which mandates that "any firearm kept or stored in the home of a child be secured in a reasonable manner to eliminate the risk of injury or death to the child", permits agents of a member state to enter a residence unannounced and potentially damage items within the residence to ensure compliance with this provision; a power that this Assembly regards as highly intrusive and open for abuse against disenfranchised populations and dissidents,

Concerned with the vague language used in the Act, such as:
  • The use of the term "proper" when referring to supervision, firearm use, and firearm safety in Articles 4, 5, and 6, which can only be interpreted in a subjective manner; as definitions and thresholds for what constitutes "proper" etiquette and standards may vary wildly from nation to nation, and
  • The use of the phrase "who may regularly encounter a child" in Article 6, which also can only be interpreted in a subjective manner; especially since the use of the word "may" removes any notion of certainty from this provision, as children "may" be encountered regularly while walking on a street, working at a restaurant that children "may" regularly visit, and taking public transportation that children "may" use regularly,
Cognizant that in nations experiencing strife such as a civil war, severe political instability, or a total breakdown of governmental order, it can be difficult or impossible to uniformly enforce the provisions mandated by this resolution; and that enforcement is thus likely be performed in a discriminatory manner,

Believing that such "one-size-fits-all" approaches to firearms regulations mandated by an international body are inherently flawed and open to abuse and subjective application,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act".
Draft created.
General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act" (Category: Gun Control; Decision: Tighten) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Acknowledging the sincere intentions behind the Child Firearm Safety Act,

Noting, however, that the Act fails to define the term "firearm", which could lead to the following items being considered a "firearm" for the purposes of this Act:
  • Airsoft guns used for recreational play,
  • Air guns used for pest and wildlife control,
  • Paintball guns used for recreational play, and
  • Flare guns used for signalling purposes,
Recognizing that Article 3 of the Act, which mandates that "any firearm kept or stored in the home of a child be secured in a reasonable manner to eliminate the risk of injury or death to the child", permits agents of a member state to enter a residence unannounced and potentially damage items within the residence to ensure compliance with this provision; a power that this Assembly regards as highly intrusive and open for abuse against disenfranchised populations and dissidents,

Further recognizing that the use of the the term "reasonable manner" in Article 3 is problematic, as this nebulously defined standard is open to subjective interpretation, and varies substantially from one member state to another,

Concerned with the vague language used in the Act which can only be interpreted in a subjective manner, such as:
  • The use of the term "proper" when referring to supervision, firearm use, and firearm safety in Articles 4, 5, and 6; as definitions and thresholds for what constitutes "proper" etiquette and standards vary substantially from nation to nation, and
  • The use of the phrase "who may regularly encounter a child" in Article 6, especially since the use of the word "may" removes any notion of certainty from this provision; as children "may" be encountered regularly while walking on a street, one can work at a restaurant that children "may" regularly visit, and one can take public transportation that children "may" use regularly,
Cognizant that in nations experiencing strife such as a civil war, severe political instability, or a total breakdown of governmental order, it can be difficult or impossible to uniformly enforce the provisions mandated by this resolution; and that enforcement is thus likely be performed in a discriminatory manner,

Believing that such "one-size-fits-all" approaches to firearms regulations mandated by an international body are inherently flawed and open to abuse and subjective application,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act".
Light edit to wording of "concerned" clause, added clause criticizing the use of the phrase "reasonable manner".
General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act" (Category: Gun Control; Decision: Tighten) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Acknowledging the sincere intentions behind the Child Firearm Safety Act,

Noting, however, that the Act does not define "firearm", potentially including:
  • Recreational soft air and paintball guns
  • Pellet guns for pest control, and
  • Signalling and flare guns,
Recognizing that Article 3 of the Act permits agents of a member state to enter a residence under dubious circumstances, ostensibly to ensure compliance with this provision; a power that this Assembly regards as highly intrusive and open for abuse against disenfranchised populations and dissidents,

Further recognizing that the use of the the term "reasonable manner" in Article 3 is problematic, as this nebulously defined standard varies from one member state to another,

Concerned with language used in the Act which can only be interpreted in a subjective manner, such as:
  • The use of the term "proper" when referring to supervision, firearm use, and firearm safety in Articles 4, 5, and 6; as thresholds for what constitutes "proper" etiquette and standards vary from nation to nation, and
  • The use of the phrase "who may regularly encounter a child" in Article 6, especially since the use of the word "may" removes any notion of certainty from this provision; which could lead to its application where children are not present around firearms,
Cognizant that in nations experiencing strife such as a civil war, severe political instability, or a total breakdown of governmental order, the uniform enforcement of the provisions mandated by this resolution cannot be guaranteed; with enforcement thus being likely to be performed in a discriminatory manner,

Believing that such "one-size-fits-all" approaches to firearms regulations mandated by an international body are inherently flawed and open to abuse and subjective application,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act".
Removed superfluous language, trimmed draft.
General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act" (Category: Gun Control; Decision: Tighten) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Acknowledging the sincere intentions behind the Child Firearm Safety Act,

Noting, however, that the Act does not define "firearm", potentially including:
  • Recreational soft air and paintball guns
  • Pellet guns for pest control, and
  • Signalling and flare guns,
Recognizing that Article 3 of the Act permits agents of a member state to enter a residence under dubious circumstances, ostensibly to ensure compliance with this provision; a power that this Assembly regards as highly intrusive and open for abuse against disenfranchised populations and dissidents,

Concerned with language used in the Act which can only be interpreted in a subjective manner, such as:
  • The use of the term "proper" when referring to supervision, firearm use, and firearm safety in Articles 4, 5, and 6; as thresholds for what constitutes "proper" etiquette and standards vary from nation to nation,
  • The use of the phrase "who may regularly encounter a child" in Article 6, especially since the use of the word "may" removes any notion of certainty from this provision; which could lead to its application where children are not present around firearms, and
  • The use of the the term "reasonable manner" in Article 3, as this nebulously defined standard varies from one member state to another,
Regarding Article 3's requirement to "eliminate" the risk of injury or death to a child as unrealistic, as there is no sure way to eliminate the risk posed by any appliance, tool, weapon, or other household fixture to a child,

Believing that such "one-size-fits-all" approaches to firearms regulations mandated by an international body are inherently flawed and open to abuse and subjective application,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act".
Nested clause, added point about untenable "eliminate" requirement.
General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act" (Category: Gun Control; Decision: Tighten) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Acknowledging the sincere intentions behind the Child Firearm Safety Act,

Noting, however, that the Act does not define "firearm", potentially including:
  • Recreational soft air and paintball guns,
  • Signalling and flare guns, and
  • Pellet guns for pest control,
Concerned with language used in the Act which can only be interpreted in a subjective manner, such as:
  • The use of the term "proper" when referring to supervision, firearm use, and firearm safety in Articles 4, 5, and 6; as thresholds for what constitutes "proper" etiquette and standards vary from nation to nation,
  • The use of the phrase "who may regularly encounter a child" in Article 6, especially since the use of the word "may" removes any notion of certainty from this provision; which could lead to its application where children are not present around firearms, and
  • The use of the term "reasonable manner" in Article 3, as this nebulously defined standard varies from one member state to another,
Regarding Article 3's requirement to "eliminate" the risk of injury or death to a child as unrealistic, as there is no way to truly eliminate the risk posed by any object to a child,

Believing that such "one-size-fits-all" approaches to firearms regulations mandated by an international body are inherently flawed and open to abuse and subjective application,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act".
Removed 'recognizing' clause.
General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act" (Category: Gun Control; Decision: Tighten) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Acknowledging the sincere intentions behind the Child Firearm Safety Act,

Noting, however, that the Act does not define "firearm", potentially including:
  • Recreational soft air and paintball guns,
  • Signalling and flare guns, and
  • Pellet guns for pest control,
Recognizing that this ambiguity can lead to the enforcement of this Act where it would not be necessary, thus posing a detriment to various industries and activities that rely on the use of projectile-firing devices,

Concerned with language used in the Act which can only be interpreted in a subjective manner, such as:
  • The use of the term "proper" when referring to supervision, firearm use, and firearm safety in Articles 4, 5, and 6; as thresholds for what constitutes "proper" etiquette and standards can vary,
  • The use of the phrase "who may regularly encounter a child" in Article 6, especially since the use of the word "may" removes any notion of certainty from this provision; which could lead to its application where children are not present around firearms, and
  • The use of the term "reasonable manner" in Article 3, as this nebulously defined standard can vary,
Regarding Article 3's requirement to "eliminate" the risk of injury or death to a child as unrealistic, as there is no way to truly eliminate the risk posed by any object to a child,

Believing that such "one-size-fits-all" approaches to firearms regulations mandated by an international body are inherently flawed and open to abuse and subjective application,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act".
"Recognizing" clause added back, this time to elaborate upon the negative effects of a lack of definition for "firearm".
General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act" (Category: Gun Control; Decision: Tighten) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Noting that the Child Firearm Safety Act does not define "firearm", potentially including:
  • Recreational soft air and paintball guns,
  • Signalling guns, and
  • Pellet guns for pest control,
Recognizing that this ambiguity can lead to the enforcement of this Act where it would not be necessary, thus posing a detriment to various industries and activities that rely on the use of projectile-firing devices,

Concerned with the language used in the Act which can only be interpreted in a subjective manner, such as:
  • The use of the term "proper" when referring to supervision, firearm use, and firearm safety in Articles 4, 5, and 6; as thresholds for what constitutes "proper" etiquette and standards can vary,
  • The use of the phrase "who may regularly encounter a child" in Article 6, especially since the use of the word "may" removes any notion of certainty from this provision; which could lead to its application where children are not present around firearms, and
  • The use of the term "reasonable manner" in Article 3, as this nebulously defined standard can vary,
Regarding Article 3's requirement to "eliminate" the risk of injury or death to a child as unrealistic, as there is no way to truly eliminate the risk posed by any object to a child,

Believing that such "one-size-fits-all" approaches to firearms regulations mandated by an international body are inherently flawed and open to abuse and subjective application,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act".
Trimmed a bit.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 9:22 am
by Greater Cesnica
Added critique of the phrase "reasonable manner".

PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 9:36 am
by Jedinsto
Greater Cesnica wrote:
General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act" (Category: Gun Control; Decision: Tighten) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Acknowledging the sincere intentions behind the Child Firearm Safety Act,

Noting, however, that the Act fails to define the term "firearm", which could lead to the following items being considered a "firearm" for the purposes of this Act:
  • Airsoft guns used for recreational play,
  • Air guns used for pest and wildlife control,
  • Paintball guns used for recreational play, and
  • Flare guns used for signalling purposes,
Recognizing that Article 3 of the Act, which mandates that "any firearm kept or stored in the home of a child be secured in a reasonable manner to eliminate the risk of injury or death to the child", permits agents of a member state to enter a residence unannounced and potentially damage items within the residence to ensure compliance with this provision; a power that this Assembly regards as highly intrusive and open for abuse against disenfranchised populations and dissidents,

Further recognizing that the use of the the term "reasonable manner" in Article 3 is problematic, as this nebulously defined standard is open to subjective interpretation, and varies substantially from one member state to another,

Concerned with the vague language used in the Act which can only be interpreted in a subjective manner, such as:
  • The use of the term "proper" when referring to supervision, firearm use, and firearm safety in Articles 4, 5, and 6; as definitions and thresholds for what constitutes "proper" etiquette and standards vary substantially from nation to nation, and
  • The use of the phrase "who may regularly encounter a child" in Article 6, especially since the use of the word "may" removes any notion of certainty from this provision; as children "may" be encountered regularly while walking on a street, one can work at a restaurant that children "may" regularly visit, and one can take public transportation that children "may" use regularly,
Cognizant that in nations experiencing strife such as a civil war, severe political instability, or a total breakdown of governmental order, it can be difficult or impossible to uniformly enforce the provisions mandated by this resolution; and that enforcement is thus likely be performed in a discriminatory manner,

Believing that such "one-size-fits-all" approaches to firearms regulations mandated by an international body are inherently flawed and open to abuse and subjective application,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act".

I support this repeal, definitions this bad are extremely problematic. Do you intend on writing a replacement?

PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 9:37 am
by Greater Cesnica
Jedinsto wrote:Do you intend on writing a replacement?

No, as per the last line in my repeal:
Believing that such "one-size-fits-all" approaches to firearms regulations mandated by an international body are inherently flawed and open to abuse and subjective application,

PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 11:24 am
by Greater Cesnica
Trimmed the draft a bit.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 2:06 pm
by Greater Cesnica
More edits done. Nested critique of "reasonable manner" under the 'concerned' clause, removed 'cognizant' clause, added clause attacking requirement to "eliminate" risk posed to children by firearms.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:07 pm
by Greater Cesnica
"Recognizing" clause added back with new content, this time elaborating upon why a lack of definition for "firearm" is a bad thing.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:20 pm
by CoraSpia
Full support, and hopefully this won't be replaced.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:23 pm
by Greater Cesnica
CoraSpia wrote:Full support, and hopefully this won't be replaced.

Certainly won't by me. I will oppose any attempt at a replacement.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:57 pm
by Astrobolt
"Opposed without a replacement. There is a legitimate interest in ensuring that untrained children do not have access to lethal firearms."

PostPosted: Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:01 pm
by Separatist Peoples
Astrobolt wrote:"Opposed without a replacement. There is a legitimate interest in ensuring that untrained children do not have access to lethal firearms."

"Then enact such regulations in your nation."

PostPosted: Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:40 am
by Thermodolia
Full support.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:48 pm
by Greater Cesnica
Any other feedback?

PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2021 7:04 pm
by Jedinsto
Greater Cesnica wrote:Any other feedback?

"None at this time, Ambassador. Good luck!"

PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2021 7:07 pm
by Greater Cesnica
Jedinsto wrote:
Greater Cesnica wrote:Any other feedback?

"None at this time, Ambassador. Good luck!"

"Appreciate it!"

PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:03 am
by Greater Cesnica
Any further thoughts?

PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:08 am
by Graintfjall
OOC: You don't seem to write in-character, which is unfortunate as this is an in-character game.

It's a bad resolution but this is a very weak repeal argument. You're just quibbling a bunch of definitions and arguing nations might interpret them in a harmful way.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:14 am
by Greater Cesnica
Graintfjall wrote:OOC: You don't seem to write in-character, which is unfortunate as this is an in-character game.

It's a bad resolution but this is a very weak repeal argument. You're just quibbling a bunch of definitions and arguing nations might interpret them in a harmful way.

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.

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2021 11:26 am
by Greater Cesnica
"I have trimmed this draft slightly."

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2021 11:39 am
by Bananaistan
"Opposed.

"This is all "it's not defined" with the exception of one clause which misinterprets the target.

"Also considering that GAR#399 passed after this, there can be no replacement."

OOC:
My 1/6th GenSec.

Regarding Article 3's requirement to "eliminate" the risk of injury or death to a child as unrealistic, as there is no way to truly eliminate the risk posed by any object to a child,


Not true. The requirement is qualified by the word reasonable.

The rest is "it's not defined" which per modly precedent is included in the NatSov only rule. Prolly what you have here is justified sufficiently to be ok legality wise, eg in the "recognizing" clause, but it seems rather weak. You need more substantial arguments here IMO.

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2021 12:17 pm
by Separatist Peoples
Bananaistan wrote:"Opposed.

"This is all "it's not defined" with the exception of one clause which misinterprets the target.

"Also considering that GAR#399 passed after this, there can be no replacement."

"That is rather the idea, ambassador! Nations can certainly regulate this matter best in accordance with their social and practical needs."

PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2021 6:43 pm
by Illu-chi
Full support. Sadly however another nation will probably replace it quickly with something just as garbage as the proposal you are to repeal.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:35 pm
by COOPDAWGG
COOPDAWG supports this act. Keep kids safe!

PostPosted: Tue Apr 06, 2021 8:06 pm
by Wayneactia
Greater Cesnica wrote:
Graintfjall wrote:OOC: You don't seem to write in-character, which is unfortunate as this is an in-character game.

It's a bad resolution but this is a very weak repeal argument. You're just quibbling a bunch of definitions and arguing nations might interpret them in a harmful way.

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.

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.