[DRAFT] Firearm Competency and Safety Compact

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

Firearm Competency and Safety Compact

~*~*~*~ Regulation ~*~*~*~ Safety ~*~*~*~

---

The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

Convinced that all individuals deserve to be as safe as possible from firearms violence;

Resolved that all World Assembly nations should take reasonable precautions so that individuals posing a danger of committing violent crimes cannot gain access to firearms;

Therefore, the General Assembly resolves as follows:

Article I: Firearm Acquisition

1. Before an individual may lawfully acquire a firearm within a member nation, that individual must demonstrate that they do not pose an imminent danger of using a firearm to commit violent crimes against others.
2. Member nations may use any reasonable process they wish for the purpose of demonstrating a lack of dangerousness, so long as the process ensures:
   
   1. To a degree of medical certainty, the individual does not suffer from an uncontrolled personality disorder or mental health condition - such as narcissism, clinical mood instability, or paranoid schizoaffective disorder - which may cause the individual to suddenly engage in erratic violent action.
   2. The individual has basic knowledge of how to safely handle and operate the firearm they intend to acquire.
   3. The individual does not have a criminal history in which they were found to have used a firearm to threaten, injure, or kill another person; or the individual has been fully rehabilitated following such criminal history.
      
      For the purposes of this provision "fully rehabilitated" means that, despite having previously used a firearm to perpetrate violence, the individual does not pose any danger of further unlawful firearm use.
3. Member nations must ensure that any personal or medical information an individual provides in order to obtain a firearm in compliance with this Article is kept sealed in strict confidentiality, to the same degree as other sensitive medical information given for purposes such as motor vehicle licensure, heavy equipment operation, state-provided health care services, or military service.

Article II: Liability
To discourage individuals from selling or otherwise providing firearms in contravention of Article I:

1. It shall be a serious or felonious criminal offense for any person to intentionally, knowingly, or with criminal negligence provide an individual with a firearm in contravention of Article I.
   
   For the purposes of the foregoing, "intentionally" means that the person's objective is to give a firearm to an individual who does not meet the qualifications of Article I; "knowingly" means the person knows the individual does not meet the qualifications of Article I, but gives them a weapon anyway; and "criminal negligence" means that the person is aware (or reasonably should be aware) of a substantial risk that the individual does not meet the qualifications of Article I, and disregards that risk to give the individual a firearm.
2. Any persons harmed by any act in contravention of Article I, or their immediate families if they are deceased or incapacitated, must be allowed to seek damages in court against the perpetrator of the harm as well as any others who provided the perpetrator with a firearm in violation of the requirements of Article I.

Article III: Temporary Restraint
Member nations shall temporarily prohibit an individual from obtaining or using a firearm if the individuals' spouse, domestic partner, family member, or other acquainted person informs the member nation of facts showing that the individual poses a substantial danger of imminent lawless action with a firearm. A restraint imposed under this Article may persist only for the minimum amount of time necessary to abate the immediate danger of unlawful activity and violence.

---

OLD DRAFTS:

Firearm Competency and Safety Compact

~*~*~*~ Regulation ~*~*~*~ Safety ~*~*~*~

---

The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

Convinced that all individuals deserve to be as safe as possible from firearms violence;

Resolved that all World Assembly nations should take reasonable precautions so that individuals posing a danger of committing violent crimes cannot gain access to firearms;

Therefore, the General Assembly resolves as follows:

Article I: Firearm Acquisition

1. Before an individual may lawfully acquire a firearm within a member nation, that individual must demonstrate that they do not pose an imminent danger of using a firearm to commit violent crimes against others.
2. Member nations may use any reasonable process they wish for the purpose of demonstrating a lack of dangerousness, so long as the process ensures:
   
   1. To a degree of medical certainty, the individual does not suffer from an uncontrolled personality disorder or mental health condition - such as narcissism, clinical mood instability, or paranoid schizoaffective disorder - which may cause the individual to suddenly engage in erratic violent action.
   2. The individual does not have a criminal history in which they were found to have used a firearm to threaten, injure, or kill another person.
   3. The individual is not a subject of any police reports, citizen complaints to law enforcement, family pleas for state assistance, or other similar public records, evidencing a present intention to kill or target others with unlawful violence.
   4. The individual is not subject to any law enforcement data, report, or information that could give rise to criminal charges for a crime involving unlawful use or threatened use of a firearm.
   5. The individual has demonstrated the knowledge, skill, and capacity to safely and effectively handle and operate the firearm they intend to acquire.
3. Member nations must ensure that any personal or medical information an individual provides in order to obtain a firearm in compliance with this Article is kept sealed in strict confidentiality, to the same degree as other sensitive medical information given for purposes such as motor vehicle licensure, heavy equipment operation, state-provided health care services, or military service.

Article II: Liability
To discourage individuals from selling or otherwise providing firearms in contravention of Article I:

1. It shall be a serious or felonious criminal offense for any person to intentionally, knowingly, or with criminal negligence provide an individual with a firearm in contravention of Article I.
   
   For the purposes of the foregoing, "intentionally" means that the person's objective is to give a firearm to an individual who does not meet the qualifications of Article I; "knowingly" means the person knows the individual does not meet the qualifications of Article I, but gives them a weapon anyway; and "criminal negligence" means that the person is aware (or reasonably should be aware) of a substantial risk that the individual does not meet the qualifications of Article I, and disregards that risk to give the individual a firearm.
2. Any persons harmed by any act in contravention of Article I, or their immediate families if they are deceased or incapacitated, must be allowed to seek damages in court against the perpetrator of the harm as well as any others who provided the perpetrator with a firearm in violation of the requirements of Article I.

Article III: Mental Health Treatment
Any individual who is unable to acquire a firearm because they have an uncontrolled personality disorder or mental health condition (see Article I.B.i) is entitled to the following:

1. Professional and confidential psychiatric mental health treatment focused on controlling the condition so that the individual is no longer a risk to suddenly engage in erratic violent action.
2. Counseling or therapy focused on overcoming any personality disorders, traumas, and unresolved emotional disturbances.
3. Referral to any other support services made available in their member nation to help people overcome the environmental factors that correlate with unlawful violence, such as financial assistance measures, educational opportunities, and batterer's intervention programs.

Article IV: School Safety
Recognizing the sad reality that schools - possibly due to their ubiquity, their vulnerable population of children and teachers, and the emotional toll generated when they are attacked - have become a common target for firearms violence in some member nations. Member nations will take at least the following minimum precautions to protect schools:

1. Schools shall be reasonably secured during school hours, and must be allowed to close to the general public during those hours (except for those who have legitimate schooling-related business), and must have a safety plan for securing their most vulnerable population, if there is any reasonable fear that the school may be at risk of imminent firearms violence.
2. A competent, well-trained law enforcement presence staffed by those who are actually willing to put their lives on the line to protect the vulnerable shall be available at all times to immediately render aid and assistance to schools upon the first sign of imminent firearms violence.

Article V: Rehabilitation
Some individuals who have been convicted of violent firearms crimes (or otherwise engaged in behavior that reveals that they are a risk of imminent unlawful firearms violence) may become rehabilitated, and may then wish to acquire a firearm for legitimate purposes. For that reason, a person who would fail to meet the requirements only because of a matter contained in Article I.B.ii through iv (above) may nonetheless establish that they do not pose an imminent danger of using a firearm to commit violent crimes against others if:

1. they produce clear and convincing evidence that they have fully atoned for the offending conduct, including fully serving their criminal sentence (if any), completing applicable probation, complying with applicable penalties, and paying ordered restitution; and
2. they produce the endorsement of a competent person who will testify to their rehabilitation. For the purposes of this provision, a "competent person" is a professional counselor, law enforcement officer, physician, or mental health provider who has substantial experience working with the individual and can provide specific details showing that the person's thinking, behavior, and perspective has substantially changed from the time of the offending conduct.

Firearm Competency and Safety Compact

~*~*~*~ Regulation ~*~*~*~ Safety ~*~*~*~

---

The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

Convinced that all individuals deserve to be as safe as possible from firearms violence;

Resolved that all World Assembly nations should take reasonable precautions so that individuals posing a danger of committing violent crimes cannot gain access to firearms;

Therefore, the General Assembly resolves as follows:

Article I: Firearm Acquisition

1. Before an individual may lawfully acquire a firearm within a member nation, that individual must demonstrate that they do not pose an imminent danger of using a firearm to commit violent crimes against others.
2. Member nations may use any reasonable process they wish for the purpose of demonstrating a lack of dangerousness, so long as the process ensures:
   
   1. To a degree of medical certainty, the individual does not suffer from an uncontrolled personality disorder or mental health condition - such as narcissism, clinical mood instability, or paranoid schizoaffective disorder - which may cause the individual to suddenly engage in erratic violent action.
   2. The individual does not have a criminal history in which they were found to have used a firearm to threaten, injure, or kill another person.
   3. The individual does not have a present intention - evidenced, for example, by threats, screeds, or manifestos - to kill or target others with unlawful violence.
3. Member nations must ensure that any personal or medical information an individual provides in order to obtain a firearm in compliance with this Article is kept sealed in strict confidentiality, to the same degree as other sensitive medical information given for purposes such as motor vehicle licensure, heavy equipment operation, state-provided health care services, or military service.

Article II: Liability
To discourage individuals from selling or otherwise providing firearms in contravention of Article I:

1. It shall be a serious or felonious criminal offense for any person to intentionally, knowingly, or with criminal negligence provide an individual with a firearm in contravention of Article I.
   
   For the purposes of the foregoing, "intentionally" means that the person's objective is to give a firearm to an individual who does not meet the qualifications of Article I; "knowingly" means the person knows the individual does not meet the qualifications of Article I, but gives them a weapon anyway; and "criminal negligence" means that the person is aware (or reasonably should be aware) of a substantial risk that the individual does not meet the qualifications of Article I, and disregards that risk to give the individual a firearm.
2. Any persons harmed by any act in contravention of Article I, or their immediate families if they are deceased or incapacitated, must be allowed to seek damages in court against the perpetrator of the violence as well as any others who provided that individual with a firearm.

Article III: Mental Health Treatment
Any individual who is unable to acquire a firearm because they have an uncontrolled personality disorder or mental health condition (see Article I.B.i) is entitled to the following:

1. Professional and confidential psychiatric mental health treatment focused on controlling the condition so that the individual is no longer a risk to suddenly engage in erratic violent action.
2. Counseling or therapy focused on overcoming any personality disorders, traumas, and unresolved emotional disturbances.
3. Referral to any other support services made available in their member nation to help people overcome the environmental factors that correlate with unlawful violence, such as financial assistance measures, educational opportunities, and batterer's intervention programs.

Article IV: School Safety
Recognizing the sad reality that schools - possibly due to their ubiquity, their vulnerable population of children and teachers, and the emotional toll generated when they are attacked - have become a common target for firearms violence in some member nations. Member nations will take at least the following minimum precautions to protect schools:

1. Schools shall be reasonably secured during school hours, and shall be closed to the public during those hours except for those who have legitimate schooling-related business.
2. A competent, well-trained law enforcement presence staffed by those who are actually willing to put their lives on the line to protect the vulnerable shall be available at all times to immediately render aid and assistance to schools upon the first sign of imminent firearms violence.

Firearm Competency

~*~*~*~ Regulation ~*~*~*~ Safety ~*~*~*~

---

The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

Convinced that all individuals deserve to be as safe as possible from firearms violence;

Resolved that all World Assembly nations should take reasonable precautions so that individuals posing a danger of committing violent crimes cannot gain access to firearms;

Therefore, the General Assembly resolves as follows:

Article I: Firearm Acquisition

1. Before an individual may lawfully acquire a firearm within a member nation, that individual must demonstrate that they do not pose an imminent danger of using a firearm to commit violent crimes against others.
2. Member nations may use any reasonable process they wish for the purpose of demonstrating a lack of dangerousness, so long as the process ensures:
   
   1. To a degree of medical certainty, the individual does not suffer from an uncontrolled personality disorder or mental health condition - such as narcissism, clinical mood instability, or paranoid schizoaffective disorder - which may cause the person to suddenly engage in erratic violent action.
   2. The person does not have a criminal history in which they were found to have used a firearm to threaten, injure, or kill another person.
3. Member nations must ensure that any personal or medical information an individual provides in order to obtain a firearm in compliance with this Article is kept sealed in strict confidentiality, to the same degree as other sensitive medical information given for purposes such as motor vehicle licensure, heavy equipment operation, state-provided health care services, or military service.

Article II: Liability
To discourage individuals from selling or otherwise providing firearms in contravention of Article I:

1. Any person who intentionally, knowingly, or with criminal negligence provides an individual with a firearm in contravention of Article I shall be held responsible for any crimes committed by that individual with the firearm.
   
   For the purposes of the foregoing, "intentionally" means that the person's objective is to give a firearm to an individual who does not meet the qualifications of Article I; "knowingly" means the person knows the individual does not meet the qualifications of Article I, but gives them a weapon anyway; and "criminal negligence" means that the person is aware (or reasonably should be aware) of a substantial risk that the individual does not meet the qualifications of Article I, and disregards that risk to give the individual a firearm.
2. Any persons harmed by any act in contravention of Article I, or their immediate families if they are deceased or incapacitated, must be allowed to seek damages in court against the perpetrator of the violence as well as any others who provided that individual with a firearm.

Firearm Competency

~*~*~*~ Global Disarmament ~*~*~*~ Significant ~*~*~*~

---

The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

Convinced that all individuals deserve to be as safe as possible from firearms violence;

Resolved that all World Assembly nations should take precautions to avoid granting individuals who pose a danger of committing violent crimes against others easy access to firearms;

Therefore, the General Assembly resolves as follows:

Article I: Firearm Acquisition
An individual must demonstrate that they do not pose a danger of imminently using a firearm to commit violent crimes against others before they may acquire a firearm.

Member Nations may use any reasonable process they wish for the purpose of demonstrating a lack of dangerousness, so long as the process ensures:

1. To a degree of medical certainty, the individual does not suffer from an uncontrolled personality disorder or mental health condition - such as narcissism, clinical mood instability, or paranoid schizoaffective disorder - which may cause the person to suddenly engage in erratic violent action.
2. The person does not have a criminal history in which they were found to have used a firearm to threaten, injure, or kill another person.

Article II: Liability
To discourage individuals from selling or otherwise providing firearms in contravention of Article I:

1. Any person who intentionally or negligently allows an individual to acquire a firearm in contravention of Article I shall be held responsible for any crimes committed by that individual with the firearm.
2. Any persons harmed by any act in contravention of Article I, or their immediate families if they are deceased or incapacitated, must be allowed to seek damages in court against the perpetrator and any others who may have been instrumental in allowing that individual to acquire a firearm.

[Tinhampton]

Does Article IIb allow individuals to sue gun manufacturers in court if the guns they manufacture - having been manufactured legally, manufactured with the intention of being used for lawful purposes only, and acquired legally - are used to kill someone in "their immediate families?" (More to the point: Are they "instrumental" in allowing acquisition?) If so, opposed; nothing in WA law says you can sue Tesla if a Tesla car goes on autopilot mode and fatally runs over one of your family, so I see nothing to argue that you should sue Colt or Smith and Wesson in similar circumstances.

[WayNeacTia]

Can we not?

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

Does Article IIb allow individuals to sue gun manufacturers in court if the guns they manufacture - having been manufactured legally, manufactured with the intention of being used for lawful purposes only, and acquired legally - are used to kill someone in "their immediate families?" (More to the point: Are they "instrumental" in allowing acquisition?) If so, opposed; nothing in WA law says you can sue Tesla if a Tesla car goes on autopilot mode and fatally runs over one of your family, so I see nothing to argue that you should sue Colt or Smith and Wesson in similar circumstances.

I see your point and that provision may need tinkering. I'm not trying to reach harmless gun manufacturers who are simply making guns and selling them wholesale to dealers. I am trying to reach only the individuals who actually put the gun in the hands of the dangerous person without complying with the Article I provisions.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

Can we not?

Probably. From the history (and the game mechanics changes) it appears very hard to pass gun control measures around here.

But if folks are going to go after even the very limited protections we have, I'm at least going on offense in the other direction. Honestly, I'm a bit sad I'm the only one even trying to move the ball forward here. Presumably not everyone in the WA is for allowing narcissists and violent criminals unfettered gun access. It strikes me as odd that we have WA mandated workplace safety standards and child adoption protocols (for instance) but can't do anything about gun violence. I am sure we can find a level of majority consensus if we really tried. Even the US Congress managed to do so recently.

[Bananaistan]

Does Article IIb allow individuals to sue gun manufacturers in court if the guns they manufacture - having been manufactured legally, manufactured with the intention of being used for lawful purposes only, and acquired legally - are used to kill someone in "their immediate families?" (More to the point: Are they "instrumental" in allowing acquisition?) If so, opposed; nothing in WA law says you can sue Tesla if a Tesla car goes on autopilot mode and fatally runs over one of your family, so I see nothing to argue that you should sue Colt or Smith and Wesson in similar circumstances.

I see your point and that provision may need tinkering. I'm not trying to reach harmless gun manufacturers who are simply making guns and selling them wholesale to dealers. I am trying to reach only the individuals who actually put the gun in the hands of the dangerous person without complying with the Article I provisions.

OOC: The wording is fine IMO. No reasonable person could interpret it too mean manufacturers who had no direct role in selling the gun to the offender are "instrumental" to that person getting the gun and thus being open to court proceedings.

Also, the Tesla example given is bad. If Tesla's software is at fault for injury, they absolutely should be held responsible for it.

Can we not?

Probably. From the history (and the game mechanics changes) it appears very hard to pass gun control measures around here.

But if folks are going to go after even the very limited protections we have, I'm at least going on offense in the other direction. Honestly, I'm a bit sad I'm the only one even trying to move the ball forward here. Presumably not everyone in the WA is for allowing narcissists and violent criminals unfettered gun access. It strikes me as odd that we have WA mandated workplace safety standards and child adoption protocols (for instance) but can't do anything about gun violence. I am sure we can find a level of majority consensus if we really tried. Even the US Congress managed to do so recently.

That the WA has already erred in excessive micromanagement of issues with no international utility, is not sufficient reason for it to continue to do so.

Also, the category. IS and GD are about police and military weapons. This seems more like a Moral Decency proposal to me.

[Imperium Anglorum]

C Marcius Blythe. I would ignore the statements from some ambassadors here about your policy being doomed; the chitty chitty bang bangs are very loud while their opponents are rather more composed. The matter of passage will have to be settled on the assembly floor by ayes and nays.

OOC. I agree with Banana that Moral Decency is probably the best category choice.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

C Marcius Blythe. I would ignore the statements from some ambassadors here about your policy being doomed; the chitty chitty bang bangs are very loud while their opponents are rather more composed. The matter of passage will have to be settled on the assembly floor by ayes and nays.

OOC. I agree with Banana that Moral Decency is probably the best category choice.

That the WA has already erred in excessive micromanagement of issues with no international utility, is not sufficient reason for it to continue to do so.

Also, the category. IS and GD are about police and military weapons. This seems more like a Moral Decency proposal to me.

You may be right about the category, although I'd prefer to frame it as a civil rights proposal if I can. Maybe I'm biased but moral decency seems like where you put prohibitions on non-violent immoral acts like, I dunno, watching pornography or something.

On that token, if people can agree that improved freedom from violence (generally, but here gun violence at the hands of dangerous individuals) is a human right, then this has exactly the same international utility as our laws prohibiting genocide and slavery. Conceptually, how different is taking the gun out of the hands of the deranged killer from taking the whip out of the hands of the slave driver.

[WayNeacTia]

C Marcius Blythe. I would ignore the statements from some ambassadors here about your policy being doomed; the chitty chitty bang bangs are very loud while their opponents are rather more composed. The matter of passage will have to be settled on the assembly floor by ayes and nays.

OOC. I agree with Banana that Moral Decency is probably the best category choice.

That the WA has already erred in excessive micromanagement of issues with no international utility, is not sufficient reason for it to continue to do so.

Also, the category. IS and GD are about police and military weapons. This seems more like a Moral Decency proposal to me.

You may be right about the category, although I'd prefer to frame it as a civil rights proposal if I can. Maybe I'm biased but moral decency seems like where you put prohibitions on non-violent immoral acts like, I dunno, watching pornography or something.

An individual must demonstrate that they do not pose a danger of imminently using a firearm to commit violent crimes against others before they may acquire a firearm.

As there is no current international law regulating firearms, except for children, you are curtailing the legal rights of gun owners. That makes this Moral Decency.

On that token, if people can agree that improved freedom from violence (generally, but here gun violence at the hands of dangerous individuals) is a human right, then this has exactly the same international utility as our laws prohibiting genocide and slavery. Conceptually, how different is taking the gun out of the hands of the deranged killer from taking the whip out of the hands of the slave driver.

The deranged killer has no legal right to inflict harm on their victim. Conversely, (and I know how horrible this sounds) the slave driver has full legal right to cause whatever harm to their own property they see fit.

[Comfed]

"Global Disarmament" does not strike me as the appropriate category for this resolution, which refers to individual firearm ownership rather than national military arms and forces.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Viciously opposed. I.A opens individual medical condition to public scrutiny, a serious breach of privacy. II.A imposes criminal liability upon a party who acts without mens rea for either the crime nor assistance for the crime, which is itself grevious violation.

"As the author historicslly saw little value in leaving the issue of domestic firearm policy in the hands of those governments best equipped to handle it, we have low expectations of seeing our concerns addressed."

Ooc: GD seems like a category violation. MD is the only correct category at this time.

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

“Support in principle, given that her highness does not like criminals causing chaos in her empire. However, to ensure that no one cheats the safety demonstrations of clause 1 via lying, a lie-detecting provision should be added.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

[WayNeacTia]

“Support in principle, given that her highness does not like criminals causing chaos in her empire. However, to ensure that no one cheats the safety demonstrations of clause 1 via lying, a lie-detecting provision should be added.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

"You are aware that your national government is fully capable of passing it's own firearms laws, correct? Contrary to popular belief, you don't actually require the gnomes permission....."

Wayne

[Wallenburg]

"Viciously opposed. I.A opens individual medical condition to public scrutiny, a serious breach of privacy. II.A imposes criminal liability upon a party who acts without mens rea for either the crime nor assistance for the crime, which is itself grevious violation.

"As the author historicslly saw little value in leaving the issue of domestic firearm policy in the hands of those governments best equipped to handle it, we have low expectations of seeing our concerns addressed."

"The Wallenburgian office echoes Ambassador Bell's concerns and lack of enthusiasm for this egregious advance against rightful firearm sale, possession, and use."

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

*snip*

Okay, fair point. While I won't concede that this sort of effort could never be framed as a civil rights issue, I'll concede it would be very difficult to write it that way.

"Viscously opposed. I.A opens individual medical condition to public scrutiny, a serious breach of privacy. II.A imposes criminal liability upon a party who acts without mens rea for either the crime nor assistance for the crime, which is itself grievous violation.

As the author historically saw little value in leaving the issue of domestic firearm policy in the hands of those governments best equipped to handle it, we have low expectations of seeing our concerns addressed."

"I am sure I don't know what you are talking about," blushes Ambassador Kaylin Twinklebright, who is currently overseeing this matter personally, "the Princess's hands are quite clean historically when it comes to addressing firearm policy - even if we are somewhat opposed to the present state of international law on the subject. In any case, I assure you we will address your very reasonable concerns! Let me give the matter some thought and see what our drafting department can do."

Ooc: GD seems like a category violation. MD is the only correct category at this time.

OOC: I won't pursue it if there is really no other category than MD. I won't accept that the only game-stat effect I can achieve through laws to keep people safe from firearms violence at the hands of the criminally insane is to reduce personal freedoms. Especially since I don't know what stat (if any) is actually increased by MD.

I'm sure I could make this is a "regulation - safety" proposal if need be. Also, with the current provisions I could make it tort reform (although I sort of feel the same way about making this a tort reform proposal as I do about making it a moral decency proposal).

[Imperium Anglorum]

Ooc: GD seems like a category violation. MD is the only correct category at this time.

OOC: I won't pursue it if there is really no other category than MD. I won't accept that the only game-stat effect I can achieve through laws to keep people safe from firearms violence at the hands of the criminally insane is to reduce personal freedoms. Especially since I don't know what stat (if any) is actually increased by MD.

I'm sure I could make this is a "regulation - safety" proposal if need be. Also, with the current provisions I could make it tort reform (although I sort of feel the same way about making this a tort reform proposal as I do about making it a moral decency proposal.

Note. Tort Reform reduces the ability to sue. Speaking for myself, I don't see any reason why it couldn't fit in "Regulation: Safety" with some changes. If you bundle a rider related to mental health funding or schooling, I think you could alternatively justify it under "Social Justice".

[WayNeacTia]

OOC: I won't pursue it if there is really no other category than MD. I won't accept that the only game-stat effect I can achieve through laws to keep people safe from firearms violence at the hands of the criminally insane is to reduce personal freedoms. Especially since I don't know what stat (if any) is actually increased by MD.

There is NO other category. As I explained, there is no current legislation on guns, save for the CFSA. When something isn't regulated, it is defacto legal, and therefore technically a right. You seek to impose regulations, which curtail those personal freedoms. Moral Decency is the only category that fits.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

OOC: I won't pursue it if there is really no other category than MD. I won't accept that the only game-stat effect I can achieve through laws to keep people safe from firearms violence at the hands of the criminally insane is to reduce personal freedoms. Especially since I don't know what stat (if any) is actually increased by MD.

There is NO other category. As I explained, there is no current legislation on guns, save for the CFSA. When something isn't regulated, it is defacto legal, and therefore technically a right. You seek to impose regulations, which curtail those personal freedoms. Moral Decency is the only category that fits.

I really don't think that's right.

Regulation -- A resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public.

Safety: Enforce stringent regulations to keep the average bystander from physical harm.

Legal Reform: Regulate the legal industry, public and private, for access to justice for all.

Even in it's current imperfect state, this proposal easily meets either of those two definitions within the (new?) Regulation category.

Edit: Emphasis mine. IA, of course you are right about the "tort reform" area of AoE. I got it mixed up with the Legal Reform area of Regulation (cited above).

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

New draft up.

Thanks to Sep and IA for the constructive feedback so far. IA, I will add a mental heath support provision in a future draft but I knew I wanted to make changes for Sep and figured I'd just get those knocked out.

[Separatist Peoples]

New draft up.

Thanks to Sep and IA for the constructive feedback so far. IA, I will add a mental heath support provision in a future draft but I knew I wanted to make changes for Sep and figured I'd just get those knocked out.

"Article I is no longer problematic. Article II A should be reworded such that member states must impose a criminal offense on such vendors. As written, it still effectively requires members treat an unlawful sale as, say, murder. While resulting murders should absolutely be a seriously aggravating factor in a serious crime, such liability should be found under its own crime and its own criminal elements and not another crime's. Requiring the imposition of a "serious or felonious" criminal charge should adequately cover this adequately for the Compliance Commission to otherwise addresses potential violations.

"We still oppose this, but it will no longer incur our active resistance as written, given that the current requirements don't impose more than our preexisting laws thanks to the necessary inquiry into imminance."

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

"Article I is no longer problematic. Article II A should be reworded such that member states must impose a criminal offense on such vendors. As written, it still effectively requires members treat an unlawful sale as, say, murder. While resulting murders should absolutely be a seriously aggravating factor in a serious crime, such liability should be found under its own crime and its own criminal elements and not another crime's. Requiring the imposition of a "serious or felonious" criminal charge should adequately cover this adequately for the Compliance Commission to otherwise addresses potential violations.

"We still oppose this, but it will no longer incur our active resistance as written, given that the current requirements don't impose more than our preexisting laws thanks to the necessary inquiry into imminance."

"Oh, oh! I now see what you meant earlier. You weren't asking for greater explication of the relevant mental states in the proposal; you were asking that the vendors not be charged with the same crime as the person who actually used the gun."

"I had originally intended it to be a form of accomplice liability; the same way the person holding the bag during a bank robbery might be charged with murder on an accomplice theory if one of their gang shoots the clerk. But I see how that might not be a fair comparison in these circumstances. I'll see if I can make the Article II provisions more acceptable in the next draft."

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

If you bundle a rider related to mental health funding or schooling, I think you could alternatively justify it under "Social Justice".

Okay, I tried. See Articles III and IV in the current draft.

Article II A should be reworded such that member states must impose a criminal offense on such vendors. As written, it still effectively requires members treat an unlawful sale as, say, murder. While resulting murders should absolutely be a seriously aggravating factor in a serious crime, such liability should be found under its own crime and its own criminal elements and not another crime's. Requiring the imposition of a "serious or felonious" criminal charge should adequately cover this adequately for the Compliance Commission to otherwise addresses potential violations.

Hopefully Article II.A should be to your liking now.

Renamed the proposal due to the increased focus.

[Tinhampton]

Why does Article IV apply to "member nations," even those where firearms are banned?

[Fachumonn]

OOC: I think we need a change how GA categories work. May bring that up in technical or something, idk.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I.B.3 seems to put an onus on states to track possible screeds and manifestos before every purchase. This is not a reasonable burden. A better approach would involve screens for actionable police reports thereof."