[DRAFT #1c] Firearm Permit Reciprocity

[Araraukar]

OOC: Blah blah text.

Araraukar has a total ban on all firearms outside of certain police units and border control officers. Does the proposal try to make it have to let foreigners possess firearms within Araraukarian jurisdiction, yes/no?

reiterates that whether or not to implement a system of ownership, open carry or concealed carry permits, and (if they choose to do so) what criteria individuals need to fulfil before being granted such permits, is a matter for each individual member state to decide

It appears not.

OOC: Then what does it do? I mean, actually. Not the blah blah no effect parts.

[WayNeacTia]

reiterates that whether or not to implement a system of ownership, open carry or concealed carry permits, and (if they choose to do so) what criteria individuals need to fulfil before being granted such permits, is a matter for each individual member state to decide

It appears not.

OOC: Then what does it do? I mean, actually. Not the blah blah no effect parts.

If you allow citizens to carry guns in your nation, you also have to grant the same right to foreigners. This is a non-starter. Also it is so far from an international issue, it wouldn't even know where to start looking. All in all another scattershot in hopes to pass something.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Then what does it do? I mean, actually. Not the blah blah no effect parts.

Read it and you'll find out.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Then what does it do? I mean, actually. Not the blah blah no effect parts.

Read it and you'll find out.

OOC: I did and didn't find the point of it and hence asked.

If you allow citizens to carry guns in your nation, you also have to grant the same right to foreigners.

Ok, then it really does make no sense.

[WayNeacTia]

.

If you allow citizens to carry guns in your nation, you also have to grant the same right to foreigners.

Ok, then it really does make no sense.

Pretty much. I am not sure if it would even be ruled legal. I have to do some research, but I smell contradiction here. I just can't place my finger on it.

[Trellania]

.
Ok, then it really does make no sense.

Pretty much. I am not sure if it would even be ruled legal. I have to do some research, but I smell contradiction here. I just can't place my finger on it.

"There is no contradiction here. I checked both this proposal and passed resolutions. Will you please stop trying to find any excuse to oppose a proposal?"

[Greater Cesnica]

If you allow citizens to carry guns in your nation, you also have to grant the same right to foreigners.

Ok, then it really does make no sense.

OOC: No, it also requires that a person from Country B to have gone through requirements in Country B to obtain a firearm at least as stringent as in Country A, if they want to possess/carry firearms in Country A. So for instance, if in Country B the requirements to obtain and carry a firearm are to pass an exam, pass a background check, and demonstrate shooting ability; while in Country A the requirements are the same, then the person from Country B can carry and possess firearms in Country A and vice-versa. However, if in Country B the requirements are only to pass a background check, then they do not have a right to carry or possess firearms in Country A.

[Araraukar]

Ok, then it really does make no sense.

OOC: No, it also requires that a person from Country B to have gone through requirements in Country B to obtain a firearm at least as stringent as in Country A, if they want to possess/carry firearms in Country A. So for instance, if in Country B the requirements to obtain and carry a firearm are to pass an exam, pass a background check, and demonstrate shooting ability; while in Country A the requirements are the same, then the person from Country B can carry and possess firearms in Country A and vice-versa. However, if in Country B the requirements are only to pass a background check, then they do not have a right to carry or possess firearms in Country A.

OOC: ...then it makes even less sense, because why would nations that want to give everyone deadly weapons want to have to administer the 5-hour exam on Country A's laws regarding firearms, 3 month course on safe handling AND have their gun locked away by Country B's police when they're not using it in a gun range, just because they want to do some gun range shooting in Country A?

And if Country A's requirements for weapons permit are not followed all the time in Country B then what's the point from Country A's POV?

(Some exaggeration is involved, of course, but otherwise examples of Country A's laws on guns are not far from RL Finland's. They significantly tightened the laws on handguns after we had one mass shooting (I forget if it was the school or the mall - one had a bomb, the other had a shooting) in early 2000's involving handguns, and you need to get a hunter's permit to own rifles/shotguns.)

[Trellania]

OOC: No, it also requires that a person from Country B to have gone through requirements in Country B to obtain a firearm at least as stringent as in Country A, if they want to possess/carry firearms in Country A. So for instance, if in Country B the requirements to obtain and carry a firearm are to pass an exam, pass a background check, and demonstrate shooting ability; while in Country A the requirements are the same, then the person from Country B can carry and possess firearms in Country A and vice-versa. However, if in Country B the requirements are only to pass a background check, then they do not have a right to carry or possess firearms in Country A.

OOC: ...then it makes even less sense, because why would nations that want to give everyone deadly weapons want to have to administer the 5-hour exam on Country A's laws regarding firearms, 3 month course on safe handling AND have their gun locked away by Country B's police when they're not using it in a gun range, just because they want to do some gun range shooting in Country A?

And if Country A's requirements for weapons permit are not followed all the time in Country B then what's the point from Country A's POV?

(Some exaggeration is involved, of course, but otherwise examples of Country A's laws on guns are not far from RL Finland's. They significantly tightened the laws on handguns after we had one mass shooting (I forget if it was the school or the mall - one had a bomb, the other had a shooting) in early 2000's involving handguns, and you need to get a hunter's permit to own rifles/shotguns.)

OOC: Country B probably wouldn't have to educate on Country A's laws. It would be up to citizens from Country B to make certain they know Country A's laws. And if Country A has massively more stringent firearm exams than Country B, Country A does not have to recognize Country B's permits at all.

[Araraukar]

OOC: ...then it makes even less sense, because why would nations that want to give everyone deadly weapons want to have to administer the 5-hour exam on Country A's laws regarding firearms, 3 month course on safe handling AND have their gun locked away by Country B's police when they're not using it in a gun range, just because they want to do some gun range shooting in Country A?

And if Country A's requirements for weapons permit are not followed all the time in Country B then what's the point from Country A's POV?

(Some exaggeration is involved, of course, but otherwise examples of Country A's laws on guns are not far from RL Finland's. They significantly tightened the laws on handguns after we had one mass shooting (I forget if it was the school or the mall - one had a bomb, the other had a shooting) in early 2000's involving handguns, and you need to get a hunter's permit to own rifles/shotguns.)

OOC: Country B probably wouldn't have to educate on Country A's laws. It would be up to citizens from Country B to make certain they know Country A's laws. And if Country A has massively more stringent firearm exams than Country B, Country A does not have to recognize Country B's permits at all.

OOC: I meant that when such a course is actually a mandatory part of the weapon licence. Country A's gunowners need to have done the same studying even though they would presumably be already aware of their home nation's laws.

The differences also apply when in one nation the lisence is permanent and in the other you need to renew it, say, every 2 years.

[Greater Cesnica]

OOC: ...then it makes even less sense, because why would nations that want to give everyone deadly weapons want to have to administer the 5-hour exam on Country A's laws regarding firearms, 3 month course on safe handling AND have their gun locked away by Country B's police when they're not using it in a gun range, just because they want to do some gun range shooting in Country A?

And if Country A's requirements for weapons permit are not followed all the time in Country B then what's the point from Country A's POV?

This is just incorrect. This resolution does not require any of what you just described. What it means is that people from country A can't go to country B with their guns or carry in Country B unless country A has gun laws as or more strict than country B.

If country C has no minimal gun laws and so does country D, then country D people and country C people can possess and carry guns in each other's country and vice versa.

If country E has really strict gun laws and country G doesn't, country E people can carry and possess guns in country G, but country G people cannot possess and carry guns in country E.

Are you still confused?

[Separatist Peoples]

"Why can member states not create their own reciprocity laws as they see fit? Why must member states be forced into such agreements? This strikes me as a backdoor attempt to strong-arm members into regulating firearms domestically or risk a flood of armed foreigners. A disingenuous tactic, to say the least."

[Araraukar]

"Why can member states not create their own reciprocity laws as they see fit? Why must member states be forced into such agreements? This strikes me as a backdoor attempt to strong-arm members into regulating firearms domestically or risk a flood of armed foreigners. A disingenuous tactic, to say the least."

IC: "Good point. Especially as I don't see anything in the proposal separating civilian and military ownership and use of guns. Under the guise of the proposal one could - with a minor adjustment to national gun laws to be a tiny bit tighter than those of one's target nation - have their military peacefully cross the border with their weapons, and then start the war from within the nation they wanted to conquer."

Are you still confused?

OOC: Not beyond the whole "how is this meant to be a. an international issue and b. a good idea?" So, again, what's the point?

[Wallenburg]

IC: "Good point. Especially as I don't see anything in the proposal separating civilian and military ownership and use of guns. Under the guise of the proposal one could - with a minor adjustment to national gun laws to be a tiny bit tighter than those of one's target nation - have their military peacefully cross the border with their weapons, and then start the war from within the nation they wanted to conquer."

I missed the invisible clause that reads "Member states may not prohibit foreign militaries from entering their territory, except to enforce firearms regulations."

[Araraukar]

IC: "Good point. Especially as I don't see anything in the proposal separating civilian and military ownership and use of guns. Under the guise of the proposal one could - with a minor adjustment to national gun laws to be a tiny bit tighter than those of one's target nation - have their military peacefully cross the border with their weapons, and then start the war from within the nation they wanted to conquer."

I missed the invisible clause that reads "Member states may not prohibit foreign militaries from entering their territory, except to enforce firearms regulations."

OOC: Foreign citizens carrying guns, who also happen to be members of the military, though...

[Wallenburg]

I missed the invisible clause that reads "Member states may not prohibit foreign militaries from entering their territory, except to enforce firearms regulations."

OOC: Foreign citizens carrying guns, who also happen to be members of the military, though...

Ooh, two invisible clauses! I'm loving the mystery.

[Trellania]

IC: "Good point. Especially as I don't see anything in the proposal separating civilian and military ownership and use of guns. Under the guise of the proposal one could - with a minor adjustment to national gun laws to be a tiny bit tighter than those of one's target nation - have their military peacefully cross the border with their weapons, and then start the war from within the nation they wanted to conquer."

"Ambassador, I'm pretty certain that's a violation of WA #399 Responsibility In Transferring Arms. It defines transfer, as far as the resolution regulates, as 'the movement of an armament from one member nation, political subdivision thereof, or non-state entity associated with a member nation to any other such entity, including non-member nations and non-state entities not associated with any nation.' And clause 8c specifically prohibits the transfer of military equipment if 'there is reasonable evidence to suggest they will be used to initiate, or aid the party conducting, a war of conquest.' By the way the terms are defined and the way the resolution is written, what you are talking about is already illegal under World Assembly law."

[Greater Cesnica]

IC: "Good point. Especially as I don't see anything in the proposal separating civilian and military ownership and use of guns. Under the guise of the proposal one could - with a minor adjustment to national gun laws to be a tiny bit tighter than those of one's target nation - have their military peacefully cross the border with their weapons, and then start the war from within the nation they wanted to conquer."

"Ambassador, I'm pretty certain that's a violation of WA #399 Responsibility In Transferring Arms. It defines transfer, as far as the resolution regulates, as 'the movement of an armament from one member nation, political subdivision thereof, or non-state entity associated with a member nation to any other such entity, including non-member nations and non-state entities not associated with any nation.' And clause 8c specifically prohibits the transfer of military equipment if 'there is reasonable evidence to suggest they will be used to initiate, or aid the party conducting, a war of conquest.' By the way the terms are defined and the way the resolution is written, what you are talking about is already illegal under World Assembly law."

"Dame Allania, you will soon come to learn that interacting with Ambassador Äyrämäki predominantly entails sifting through a deluge of inaccuracies, bad-faith interpretations, and antagonistic arguments; only to come upon the rare kernels of truth and useful feedback that she provides once in a while. For it is not that Ambassador Äyrämäki is poor-witted- on the contrary, I regard her as quite intelligent- but rather it is her attitude that our delegation and many others find so difficult."

[WayNeacTia]

"Ambassador, I'm pretty certain that's a violation of WA #399 Responsibility In Transferring Arms. It defines transfer, as far as the resolution regulates, as 'the movement of an armament from one member nation, political subdivision thereof, or non-state entity associated with a member nation to any other such entity, including non-member nations and non-state entities not associated with any nation.' And clause 8c specifically prohibits the transfer of military equipment if 'there is reasonable evidence to suggest they will be used to initiate, or aid the party conducting, a war of conquest.' By the way the terms are defined and the way the resolution is written, what you are talking about is already illegal under World Assembly law."

"Dame Allania, you will soon come to learn that interacting with Ambassador Äyrämäki predominantly entails sifting through a deluge of inaccuracies, bad-faith interpretations, and antagonistic arguments; only to come upon the rare kernels of truth and useful feedback that she provides once in a while. For it is not that Ambassador Äyrämäki is poor-witted- on the contrary, I regard her as quite intelligent- but rather it is her attitude that our delegation and many others find so difficult."

Ok, then it really does make no sense.

OOC: No, it also requires that a person from Country B to have gone through requirements in Country B to obtain a firearm at least as stringent as in Country A, if they want to possess/carry firearms in Country A. So for instance, if in Country B the requirements to obtain and carry a firearm are to pass an exam, pass a background check, and demonstrate shooting ability; while in Country A the requirements are the same, then the person from Country B can carry and possess firearms in Country A and vice-versa. However, if in Country B the requirements are only to pass a background check, then they do not have a right to carry or possess firearms in Country A.

Did you bother to read clause C? "requires that each member state which chooses to grant ownership permits, open carry permits, or concealed carry permits for a particular firearm recognize as valid permits of the same nature for that firearm granted to any person in any other member state, where that person obtained that permit from the latter state for that firearm by fulfilling criteria at least as stringent as those required by the former state for its own permits of the same nature for that firearm,". You will note the highlighted part there? Notice the word former? As in previous. As in foreigner wants to carry a gun in you country. As long as they fulfill all of the requirements in their HOME nation, whom issued the permit, foreign persons only need their equivalency of training, as long as you allow firearms to be carried in your nation. That training could be a guy saying not to shoot yourself in the foot in their nation, whilst your nation may require extensive background checks. Should probably keep that in mind, whist throwing around IC bait.

[Trellania]

Did you bother to read clause C? "requires that each member state which chooses to grant ownership permits, open carry permits, or concealed carry permits for a particular firearm recognize as valid permits of the same nature for that firearm granted to any person in any other member state, where that person obtained that permit from the latter state for that firearm by fulfilling criteria at least as stringent as those required by the former state for its own permits of the same nature for that firearm,". You will note the highlighted part there? Notice the word former? As in previous. As in foreigner wants to carry a gun in you country. As long as they fulfill all of the requirements in their HOME nation, whom issued the permit, foreign persons only need their equivalency of training, as long as you allow firearms to be carried in your nation. That training could be a guy saying not to shoot yourself in the foot in their nation, whilst your nation may require extensive background checks. Should probably keep that in mind, whist throwing around IC bait.

"Ambassador, may I suggest you consult a dictionary? 'Former' in this case obviously means 'first in order of two or more things cited or understood' or 'preceding in place or arrangement' while 'latter' obviously means 'of, relating to, or being the second of two groups or things or the last of several groups or things referred to.' The reason for this is because, in the language our speech is being translated to, it is typical for 'former' and 'latter' when used in language to refer to listing order. The words indicate merely where the mentions came in text, nothing more."

[Cannicat]

Character count: 2,328
Word count: 387

ICly by Lydia Anderson, newly-appointed Assistant to the Delegate-Ambassador. (Bianca Venkman has resigned.)

OOC 1: I am aware that GA#399.5 "assures member nations of the exclusive right to determine purely internal arms trading and firearm policy." Article c is not apparently "purely internal," given that it only involves procedures for member states granting firearm permits when other member states to do.
OOC 2: Vaguely inspired by Richard Hudson's now-perennial Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.

(Image)
Firearm Permit Reciprocity
A resolution to improve worldwide human sapient and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Recognising that many individuals in member states may choose to own firearms or carry firearms in public for many reasons, such as to defend themselves or participate in sport shooting, and

Believing that the ability of these individuals to own or carry firearms should not be restricted in any member state simply because they were issued a permit to do so in another member state...

The General Assembly hereby:

1. defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. an "ownership permit" as a document issued by a member state granting its holder the right to own a particular firearm,
   2. an "open carry permit" as a document issued by a member state granting its holder the right to carry a particular firearm in public without a requirement to conceal it from public view, and
   3. a "concealed carry permit" as a document issued by a member state granting its holder the right to carry a particular firearm in public, provided that said firearm is concealed from public view,
2. reiterates that whether or not to implement a system of ownership, open carry or concealed carry permits, and (if they choose to do so) what criteria individuals need to fulfil before being granted such permits, is a matter for each individual member state to decide,
3. requires that each member state which chooses to grant ownership permits, open carry permits, or concealed carry permits for a particular firearm recognise as valid permits of the same nature for that firearm granted to any person in any other member state, where that person obtained that permit from the latter state for that firearm by fulfilling criteria at least as stringent as those required by the former state for its own permits of the same nature for that firearm,
4. further requires that member states which allow their residents to own and carry firearms without a permit refrain from requiring their non-residents from acquiring a permit before they can own or carry firearms as appropriate, and
5. clarifies that nothing in this resolution prevents member states from restricting the ability of those of their inhabitants who have committed a violent crime (or are likely to commit a violent crime in the near future) to own or carry firearms, regardless of whether those inhabitants are allowed by other member states to do so.

(Image)
Firearm Permit Reciprocity
A resolution to improve worldwide human sapient and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Recognising that many individuals in member states may choose to own firearms or carry firearms in public for many reasons, such as to defend themselves or participate in sport shooting, and

Believing that the ability of these individuals to own or carry firearms should not be restricted in any member state simply because they were issued a permit to do so in another member state...

The General Assembly hereby:

1. defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. an "ownership permit" as a document issued by a member state granting its holder the right to own a particular firearm,
   2. an "open carry permit" as a document issued by a member state granting its holder the right to carry a particular firearm in public without a requirement to conceal it from public view, and
   3. a "concealed carry permit" as a document issued by a member state granting its holder the right to carry a particular firearm in public, provided that said firearm is concealed from public view,
2. reiterates that whether or not to implement a system of ownership, open carry or concealed carry permits, and (if they choose to do so) what criteria individuals need to fulfil before being granted such permits, is a matter for each individual member state to decide, and
3. requires that:
   
   1. each member state which chooses to grant ownership permits for a particular firearm recognise as valid those ownership permits for that firearm granted to any person in any other member state, where that person obtained their ownership permit from the latter state for that firearm by fulfilling criteria at least as stringent as those required by the former state for its own ownership permits for that firearm,
   2. each member state which chooses to grant open carry permits for a particular firearm recognise as valid those open carry permits for that firearm granted to any person in any other member state, where that person obtained their open carry permit from the latter state for that firearm by fulfilling criteria at least as stringent as those required by the former state for its own open carry permits for that firearm, and that
   3. each member state which chooses to grant concealed carry permits for a particular firearm recognise as valid those concealed carry permits for that firearm granted to any person in any other member state, where that person obtained their concealed carry permit from the latter state for that firearm by fulfilling criteria at least as stringent as those required by the former state for its own concealed carry permits for that firearm.

HumanSapient and civil rights?

[Cannicat]

Character count: 2,328
Word count: 387

ICly by Lydia Anderson, newly-appointed Assistant to the Delegate-Ambassador. (Bianca Venkman has resigned.)

OOC 1: I am aware that GA#399.5 "assures member nations of the exclusive right to determine purely internal arms trading and firearm policy." Article c is not apparently "purely internal," given that it only involves procedures for member states granting firearm permits when other member states to do.
OOC 2: Vaguely inspired by Richard Hudson's now-perennial Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.

(Image)
Firearm Permit Reciprocity
A resolution to improve worldwide human sapient and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Recognising that many individuals in member states may choose to own firearms or carry firearms in public for many reasons, such as to defend themselves or participate in sport shooting, and

Believing that the ability of these individuals to own or carry firearms should not be restricted in any member state simply because they were issued a permit to do so in another member state...

The General Assembly hereby:

1. defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. an "ownership permit" as a document issued by a member state granting its holder the right to own a particular firearm,
   2. an "open carry permit" as a document issued by a member state granting its holder the right to carry a particular firearm in public without a requirement to conceal it from public view, and
   3. a "concealed carry permit" as a document issued by a member state granting its holder the right to carry a particular firearm in public, provided that said firearm is concealed from public view,
2. reiterates that whether or not to implement a system of ownership, open carry or concealed carry permits, and (if they choose to do so) what criteria individuals need to fulfil before being granted such permits, is a matter for each individual member state to decide,
3. requires that each member state which chooses to grant ownership permits, open carry permits, or concealed carry permits for a particular firearm recognise as valid permits of the same nature for that firearm granted to any person in any other member state, where that person obtained that permit from the latter state for that firearm by fulfilling criteria at least as stringent as those required by the former state for its own permits of the same nature for that firearm,
4. further requires that member states which allow their residents to own and carry firearms without a permit refrain from requiring their non-residents from acquiring a permit before they can own or carry firearms as appropriate, and
5. clarifies that nothing in this resolution prevents member states from restricting the ability of those of their inhabitants who have committed a violent crime (or are likely to commit a violent crime in the near future) to own or carry firearms, regardless of whether those inhabitants are allowed by other member states to do so.

(Image)
Firearm Permit Reciprocity
A resolution to improve worldwide human sapient and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Recognising that many individuals in member states may choose to own firearms or carry firearms in public for many reasons, such as to defend themselves or participate in sport shooting, and

Believing that the ability of these individuals to own or carry firearms should not be restricted in any member state simply because they were issued a permit to do so in another member state...

The General Assembly hereby:

1. defines, for the purposes of this resolution:
   
   1. an "ownership permit" as a document issued by a member state granting its holder the right to own a particular firearm,
   2. an "open carry permit" as a document issued by a member state granting its holder the right to carry a particular firearm in public without a requirement to conceal it from public view, and
   3. a "concealed carry permit" as a document issued by a member state granting its holder the right to carry a particular firearm in public, provided that said firearm is concealed from public view,
2. reiterates that whether or not to implement a system of ownership, open carry or concealed carry permits, and (if they choose to do so) what criteria individuals need to fulfil before being granted such permits, is a matter for each individual member state to decide, and
3. requires that:
   
   1. each member state which chooses to grant ownership permits for a particular firearm recognise as valid those ownership permits for that firearm granted to any person in any other member state, where that person obtained their ownership permit from the latter state for that firearm by fulfilling criteria at least as stringent as those required by the former state for its own ownership permits for that firearm,
   2. each member state which chooses to grant open carry permits for a particular firearm recognise as valid those open carry permits for that firearm granted to any person in any other member state, where that person obtained their open carry permit from the latter state for that firearm by fulfilling criteria at least as stringent as those required by the former state for its own open carry permits for that firearm, and that
   3. each member state which chooses to grant concealed carry permits for a particular firearm recognise as valid those concealed carry permits for that firearm granted to any person in any other member state, where that person obtained their concealed carry permit from the latter state for that firearm by fulfilling criteria at least as stringent as those required by the former state for its own concealed carry permits for that firearm.

HumanSapient and civil rights?

What does improving Human mean?
you go to the WA council and say: I want to improve hooman.

[Araraukar]

"Dame Allania, you will soon come to learn that interacting with Ambassador Äyrämäki predominantly entails sifting through a deluge of inaccuracies, bad-faith interpretations, and antagonistic arguments; only to come upon the rare kernels of truth and useful feedback that she provides once in a while. For it is not that Ambassador Äyrämäki is poor-witted- on the contrary, I regard her as quite intelligent- but rather it is her attitude that our delegation and many others find so difficult."

OOC: Ok, no IC for you then.

Point out to me where the proposal says it doesn't apply to military?

[Greater Cesnica]

"Dame Allania, you will soon come to learn that interacting with Ambassador Äyrämäki predominantly entails sifting through a deluge of inaccuracies, bad-faith interpretations, and antagonistic arguments; only to come upon the rare kernels of truth and useful feedback that she provides once in a while. For it is not that Ambassador Äyrämäki is poor-witted- on the contrary, I regard her as quite intelligent- but rather it is her attitude that our delegation and many others find so difficult."

OOC: Ok, no IC for you then.

Point out to me where the proposal says it doesn't apply to military?

Point out to me where it does. Stop injecting invisible clauses in.

Should probably keep that in mind, whist throwing around IC bait.

That's rich coming from you.

As for your incoherent rant about how I'm apparently misreading Article C, I interpreted it the same way as you did. I fail to see how you missed that. Except I don't think you actually did. You're making a particularly bad-faith argument. No one likes your bad-faith arguments. Please cease doing so. You have been told this ever since you started using this nation on the forums, as well as with your former nations. Please, just stop.

[CoraSpia]

"Although the Havenic government believes that a state has no right to dictate which weapons its citizens should be permitted to own, it will support this proposal as a strong step towards this future."