[DRAFT] Firearm Competency and Safety Compact

[Juansonia]

"Since this legislation is the firearm competency and safety act, perhaps it would be a good idea to add a clause or section which requires those acquiring a firearm to, at least once in their lives, demonstrate an understanding of the safe and effective operation of firearms. If you did that, and appended 'in violation of Article 1' to IIB, we'd be willing to support the legislation."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

“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

"Surely all of us are aware of the fact that Polygraph ought to be called 'confidence detectors' instead of 'lie detectors'. As of current, polygraphs are the only lie detection machines that Juansonia is aware of. Unless a reliable means of lie detection is to be distributed to WA member nations, Juansonia remains opposed to any proposal which requires use of lie detection apparatuses."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC. What's the connection between

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.

And imminence? Could not a former felon who is now a reformed upstanding citizen pose no imminent danger of committing lawless action?

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

OOC. What's the connection between

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.

And imminence? Could not a former felon who is now a reformed upstanding citizen pose no imminent danger of committing lawless action?

If a person has a criminal history involving the use or threatened use of firearm violence, then that is substantial evidence the person “pose[s] a danger” of performing imminent lawless action with firearms. I call this the principle of occasional practice. We may reasonably infer that a person who has done something in the past may be able to do it again in the future. Example: Wayne Gretzky has scored a goal in professional hockey. From that bare fact alone, we may by mere logic alone infer that he poses a risk of doing it again.

Similarly, we must acknowledge that once a person has demonstrated that they are capable of using a firearm to perpetrate violent crime (something the vast majority of our species will never do) we can also acknowledge the imminent danger of allowing such person to handle a firearm again.

And there you have it, in two paragraphs, why many jurisdictions make it unlawful for any felon to possess a firearm. I actually considered expanding the proposal provision to apply if there is any prior violent crime, or any felonious history at all; not just those involving firearms. Maybe I still could if there’s interest in that.

But, legality aside, your point about reformation is quite reasonable. I will try to address that in the next draft.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

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

"Well, it is a protection for school children against unlawful violent firearm use. Such violence may occur, sadly, even in places where firearms are banned. We must reckon with the fact that people will commit violations of our laws despite how strongly worded they are or how many enforcement gnomes we employ. That is sort of the point of the Article: an additional safety measure for particular vulnerable people just in case other laws and provisions do not manage to completely stop all firearms violence everywhere forever."

"But we will always try to incorporate the feedback of our friends. So I have asked that Art. IV be re-written slightly to better reflect that not every nation is as plagued by the scourge of firearm violence as others.

"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."

"Is it too much of a burden to expect the state to engage in substantial investigative efforts - to determine if an individual is a madman - before allowing them to acquire firearms? We have modified I.B.3 to (hopefully) address this concern, but we do remain open to the possibility of reversing course and imposing expanded background check requirements if there is political will for that.

“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

"Surely all of us are aware of the fact that Polygraph ought to be called 'confidence detectors' instead of 'lie detectors'. As of current, polygraphs are the only lie detection machines that Juansonia is aware of. Unless a reliable means of lie detection is to be distributed to WA member nations, Juansonia remains opposed to any proposal which requires use of lie detection apparatuses."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

"It is an interesting idea proposed by Ms. Schafer, but I must agree with Ambassador Novo that so-called lie detection technology is not sufficiently advanced or reliable in too many jurisdictions to justify incorporating it as an across-the-board international requirement. I would not stop nations from using that technology if they wish. But I worry that it might just keep firearms out of the hands of nervous and physiologically diverse people - while the real sociopaths will find ways to overcome the test.

"Since this legislation is the firearm competency and safety act, perhaps it would be a good idea to add a clause or section which requires those acquiring a firearm to, at least once in their lives, demonstrate an understanding of the safe and effective operation of firearms. If you did that, and appended 'in violation of Article 1' to IIB, we'd be willing to support the legislation."

"Excellent point, and I have added a provision to this effect to the current draft.

Could not a former felon who is now a reformed upstanding citizen pose no imminent danger of committing lawless action?

"Of course they could; a reality which is not accommodated in the current draft.

"I hope you all are as please with the development of this draft as I am."

-Amb. K. Twinklebright

[Separatist Peoples]

"I.B.i and v have made this, again, untenable. Section i requires states view medical history without regard for privacy or relevance to gun ownership. Unless an individual was adjudicated as in need of involuntary confinement as a result of their medical condition, this is an unacceptable intrusion into individual privacy. Section v imposes a competency requirement that is entirely unnecessary. Without a firearm upon which to gain competence, it seems entirely unreasonable to expect a demonstration of such competence in any meaningful capacity.

"The authorial delegation has continued to ramp up controls on domestic firearm intrusions without regard for domestic need for such intrusions, especially as the restrictions continue to mount. This seems far more an agenda against civilian firearm ownership and less an interest in addressing what modicum of international interest the WA may have in such restrictions. If this is how the Cowardly Pacifist delegation would like to address this problem, we are willing to seek alternative solutions."

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

*snip*

“I will reflect on this and see if I can come up with something better. The I.B.v changes you oppose were specifically requested by our sister from Juansonia, so perhaps the three of us could discuss that objection further. The Article I.B.i language… we thought you had approved of. Well, ‘no longer problematic,’ was your phrasing.

“But let me pause to assure you, the Princess is very committed to the right of women (and I suppose men) to arm themselves in self defense, to protect the vulnerable, and to resist true tyranny. We seek only an agreeable compromise, in light of modern needs, to reckon with what has emerged as an evil that an armed, technologically advanced society will sometimes produce. I am sure we can protect the good, while also fighting that evil. Please continue to work with us.

“Also, we are offended by the libel (or is it slander?). The Princess’s rule is not pacifist - she understands that force of right is THE living relic of the natural law. She seeks only to wield force responsibly and as little as necessary. And she is certainly not a coward.”

[Juansonia]

"I.B.i and v have made this, again, untenable. Section i requires states view medical history without regard for privacy or relevance to gun ownership. Unless an individual was adjudicated as in need of involuntary confinement as a result of their medical condition, this is an unacceptable intrusion into individual privacy. Section v imposes a competency requirement that is entirely unnecessary. Without a firearm upon which to gain competence, it seems entirely unreasonable to expect a demonstration of such competence in any meaningful capacity."

"Perhaps clause I.B.v could be amended so the competency requirement does not apply to 'range rentals' or similar circumstances in which the rented firearm is kept within a supervised location while rented. While I doubt that this would allow bypassing of the blocker, it would address one of Separatist Peoples's concerns."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

[Makko Oko]

The Makko Okoan Minister Of Defense Jake Wiseman barges into the room and yells blatantly, "WHY DON'T WE JUST BAN FIREARMS? WHAT PURPOSES WOULD A CIVILIAN NEED IT OTHER THAN HUNTING?!?" They then realize they were yelling and apologize, then saying "This just aggravates me. Nothing's more safe than banning weapons, and it doesn't have to be all firearms either, just all of them except for hunting. Think about the lives we'd be saving and the mass shootings we'd be preventing!"

[Barfleur]

"Regardless of my thoughts on the rest of this proposal, I at least wish to voice my concern with Article I(B(iv)-(v). I do not think that merely being subject (or having been a subject in the past) of a complaint or order of protection, or on a list of any kind, should be sufficient to deprive a person of an interest to which they would otherwise be entitled. Surely there ought to be a standard of proof specified in the proposal: i.e., a protective order which requires to court to find that the individual named has been threatening or harassing the complainant is markedly different from a call to the police, unsupported by any evidence, that a person has made a threat."

[Wallenburg]

The Makko Okoan Minister Of Defense Jake Wiseman barges into the room and yells blatantly, "WHY DON'T WE JUST BAN FIREARMS? WHAT PURPOSES WOULD A CIVILIAN NEED IT OTHER THAN HUNTING?!?" They then realize they were yelling and apologize, then saying "This just aggravates me. Nothing's more safe than banning weapons, and it doesn't have to be all firearms either, just all of them except for hunting. Think about the lives we'd be saving and the mass shootings we'd be preventing!"

"An armed populace is necessary to devolve ordinary matters of policing and domestic defense to the people, as well as to ensure labor power. By disempowering the people at large, you empower capitalist hierarchy."

[Bananaistan]

OOC: This seems to have crept very far away from preventing “individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action” from getting guns as allowed by GAR#399.

Also just no the US-centric nonsense about schools.

[Comfed]

I agree with Banana - this has evolved significantly further than its initial scope. I have some other comments:

1.B.iii. 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.
1.B.iv. 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.

If the requirement is just that there are complaints or investigations, I think there are due process concerns here, though they may be minor.

1.C. 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.

I think the examples are not great because they may reflect on your familiarity with the system where you are, presumably the U.S., and they seem very disconnected from each other.

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.

This is seriously beyond the scope of your resolution. I would scrap this altogether.

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.

I don't think you need to include a section about this, and the way you do it is also beyond the scope of this resolution.

Frankly, I don't really think this is a topic worth pursuing.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I.B.i and v have made this, again, untenable. Section i requires states view medical history without regard for privacy or relevance to gun ownership. Unless an individual was adjudicated as in need of involuntary confinement as a result of their medical condition, this is an unacceptable intrusion into individual privacy. Section v imposes a competency requirement that is entirely unnecessary. Without a firearm upon which to gain competence, it seems entirely unreasonable to expect a demonstration of such competence in any meaningful capacity."

"Perhaps clause I.B.v could be amended so the competency requirement does not apply to 'range rentals' or similar circumstances in which the rented firearm is kept within a supervised location while rented. While I doubt that this would allow bypassing of the blocker, it would address one of Separatist Peoples's concerns."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

"No, ambassador. It would not."

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

Section v imposes a competency requirement that is entirely unnecessary. Without a firearm upon which to gain competence, it seems entirely unreasonable to expect a demonstration of such competence in any meaningful capacity.

Perhaps clause I.B.v could be amended so the competency requirement does not apply to 'range rentals' or similar circumstances in which the rented firearm is kept within a supervised location while rented. While I doubt that this would allow bypassing of the blocker, it would address one of Separatist Peoples's concerns.

"No, ambassador. It would not."

"On further reflection, our delegation agrees that imposing general weapon skill requirements would go beyond the immediate-danger scope authorized under the present state of international law. We believe most reasonable nations would have a provision like the one we are discussing in their national law. Perhaps something even stronger if they allow common ownership of extremely powerful modern weapons. However, unless and until GAR #399 is repealed the people of each member nations must be left to enjoy/suffer the consequences of lesser protections, if that is what they choose.

We also agree that attempting to micromanage national gun ranges or otherwise find ways to make a general weapon skill requirement stick is the wrong way to go.

The current draft (Fifth) contains only the following modest language on this particular point: "The individual has basic knowledge of how to safely handle and operate the firearm they intend to acquire." It is our hope that we can all agree a person who does not even have the knowledge necessary to safely handle and operate a firearm would be imminently dangerous with a gun in their hands. I think most responsible gun owners would agree that this is sort of a baseline for responsible gun ownership.

"Regardless of my thoughts on the rest of this proposal, I at least wish to voice my concern with Article I(B(iv)-(v). I do not think that merely being subject (or having been a subject in the past) of a complaint or order of protection, or on a list of any kind, should be sufficient to deprive a person of an interest to which they would otherwise be entitled. Surely there ought to be a standard of proof specified in the proposal: i.e., a protective order which requires to court to find that the individual named has been threatening or harassing the complainant is markedly different from a call to the police, unsupported by any evidence, that a person has made a threat."

Agreed. I have reorganized those sections into a new Article, which I think will do exactly what you are suggesting here, and not automatically disqualify everyone who may have been the subject of a police report now and again.

I agree with Banana - this has evolved significantly further than its initial scope. I have some other comments:

1.B.iii. 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.
1.B.iv. 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.

If the requirement is just that there are complaints or investigations, I think there are due process concerns here, though they may be minor.

1.C. 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.

I think the examples are not great because they may reflect on your familiarity with the system where you are, presumably the U.S., and they seem very disconnected from each other.

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.

This is seriously beyond the scope of your resolution. I would scrap this altogether.

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.

I don't think you need to include a section about this, and the way you do it is also beyond the scope of this resolution.

Frankly, I don't really think this is a topic worth pursuing.

The I.B.iii-iv provisions have been removed, and the concept that motivated them substantially reworked, to avoid the due process problem you picked up on.

The examples were meant to be wide-ranging and not necessary connected, to illustrate a point about the myriad circumstances in which we must trust government to receive and keep confidential personal information about ourselves. I don't believe they are US-centric. People in nearly every society tolerate questions about their health when they get their driver license, request medical care from a state-provided source, seek to join the military/law enforcement/fire brigade, and operate heavy machinery for work.

I agree with you about the Fourth Draft's Article III and IV and have removed them.

I do think this topic remains worthy of pursuit.

The Makko Okoan Minister Of Defense Jake Wiseman barges into the room and yells blatantly, "WHY DON'T WE JUST BAN FIREARMS? WHAT PURPOSES WOULD A CIVILIAN NEED IT OTHER THAN HUNTING?!?" They then realize they were yelling and apologize, then saying "This just aggravates me. Nothing's more safe than banning weapons, and it doesn't have to be all firearms either, just all of them except for hunting. Think about the lives we'd be saving and the mass shootings we'd be preventing!"

"An armed populace is necessary to devolve ordinary matters of policing and domestic defense to the people, as well as to ensure labor power. By disempowering the people at large, you empower capitalist hierarchy."

"While I am sure the Makko Oko Ambassador means well, we absolutely will not be going in that direction with this proposal."

OOC: This seems to have crept very far away from preventing “individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action” from getting guns as allowed by GAR#399.

Also just no the US-centric nonsense about schools.

OOC: The US-centric nonsense about schools was derived from a suggestion for avoiding the category issue discussed earlier. For now, I'll assume no one has any hard objections to me moving forward in the Regulation->Safety category. The school safety provisions were not in my original concept for this, after all.

I suppose if later there is a renewed problem with the category I can always try adding that Article (or something like it) back in.

NEW DRAFT UP. Hopefully folks will agree we are back on a reasonable track now after the Fourth Draft's brief foray into less-sound territory.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I want to echo what Banana said earlier:

OOC: This seems to have crept very far away from preventing “individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action” from getting guns as allowed by GAR#399.

I feel what is going on – from a proposal legality standpoint – is a magic trick that we can easily see through. There's this section:

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.

This section is fine. It goes directly through the hole left by GA 399 RiTA and is entirely acceptable. The following section is the magic trick:

_(i) 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.

_(ii) The individual has basic knowledge of how to safely handle and operate the firearm they intend to acquire.

_(iii) 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.

There's an arguable connection between _(i) and GA 399's "imminent lawless action" which I would be perfectly willing to accept with a preamble clause so asserting. But sections _(ii)–(iii) are non-topical. Requiring basic knowledge of safe firearm handling is not tightly-linked to imminent lawless action. The closest is that someone from a As Seen on TV™ commercial might accidentally discharge the firearm. This is a fear that is neither imminent nor necessarily lawless (depending on the locations the bullets end up, noise regulations, etc). And _(iii) is even less tightly-linked to imminent lawless action. Mere purchase by a person with a criminal history who is not "fully rehabilitated" is not tightly-linked to imminent lawless action.

We can see this magic trick clearly by examining GA 399's blocker clause and the descendant words used here, which snip off the blocker clauses two-prongs-required test to meet only one prong or even no prongs at all. _(i) mentions only violence without unlawfulness; _(ii) mentions no elements of GA 399's test at all; _(iii) mentions merely "unlawful" and only in a proviso. All of the relevant clauses have to fit into the space the blocker left; these provisions are clearly out-of-bounds.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

*snip*

There's no "magic trick" being attempted here. Every provision in the Fifth Draft has a very straightforward and easy-to-understand fit (see below) within the GAR #399 blocker provision. I am trying very hard to work within that blocker so I can pursue reasonable measures to curb gun violence without repealing GAR #399. Isn't that what GAR #399 was supposed to allow me to do?

Let's revisit the blocker language briefly:

Assures member nations of the [blah blah blah] excepting: * * *

future regulations which seek to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action

Let's be very careful as we parse this language. The exception allows for:

(1) future regulations
(2) which seek to prevent firearms
(3) from being sold to or used
(4) by individuals
(5) that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action.

I bolded the important bit. The blocker allows regulations which abate a specific danger: the danger of imminent lawless action.

I really do appreciate your agreement that individuals who suffer from a mental health condition which makes them prone to sudden erratic violent behavior pose a danger of imminent lawless action with firearms. On the same token, I think we should be able to agree that a person who does not even know how to use a firearm safely poses a danger of performing imminent lawless action when you put a gun in their hands. And, I think we should be able to agree that a person who has used a firearm to commit violence in the past almost certainly poses a danger, for reasons I already shared: very few of us will ever be convicted of a firearms offense and it is rightly regarded as dangerous to be allowing those who have to freely acquire more weapons.

I can make these principles more clear in the preamble if necessary. And I am open to whatever suggestions you have on adding words about imminent lawless action to the preamble; really, I'll need suggestions from you to understand exactly what might be missing. But I want it on the record that I am NOT trying to trick anyone. I believe all of the current provisions (again, Draft Five) can and do satisfy GAR #399's criteria for regulations seeking to abate the danger of imminent lawless action.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Isn't that what GAR #399 was supposed to allow me to do?

I'll review your arguments in good faith, think on it, and update my position or otherwise post a rebuttal when able to do so in a timely manner. But as to the statement quoted above, frankly, GA 399's blocker provision was meant (as in "supposed") to make it basically impossible for any gun control or gun liberalisation regulation to be passed in the future and to do it without falling afoul of the blocker rule (nb, when it was passed, "Gun Control" still existed as a category).

[Separatist Peoples]

On the same token, I think we should be able to agree that a person who does not even know how to use a firearm safely poses a danger of performing imminent lawless action when you put a gun in their hands.

Ooc: I can't agree with this assessment. As somebody who has been trained and occasionally teaches new shooters, there is no particular risk of lawless action in new shooters. While they may pose a risk of negligent action, even the most idiotic and unaware shooters rarely place themselves in a position to break the law by merely possessing a firearm without training. Frankly, I don't think policy stemming from this assumption is legal under GAR#399 based on that nuance.

The danger of imminent lawless action needs to be more than a bare probability. It needs to be a sufficient enough risk of an action which is already illegal. Making an action illegal and then justifying that as grounds to impose regulation don't square with this requirement. Thus, so long as it is not imminently lawless to possess a firearm as, say, a felon, in a given nation, I'm not sure how GAR#399 could allow a resolution to make that the case without reading the blocker clause as effectively useless. Otherwise, the WA could assume mere possession of a weapon is a lawless act.

I struggle to see many circumstances where 399's blocker exception permits the WA much freedom when interpreted in the context of it's stated goal to reserve domestic gun laws to individual nations.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

On the same token, I think we should be able to agree that a person who does not even know how to use a firearm safely poses a danger of performing imminent lawless action when you put a gun in their hands.

Ooc: I can't agree with this assessment. As somebody who has been trained and occasionally teaches new shooters, there is no particular risk of lawless action in new shooters. While they may pose a risk of negligent action, even the most idiotic and unaware shooters rarely place themselves in a position to break the law by merely possessing a firearm without training. Frankly, I don't think policy stemmin,g from this assumption is legal under GAR#399 based on that nuance.

The danger of imminent lawless action needs to be more than a bare probability. It needs to be a sufficient enough risk of an action which is already illegal. Making an action illegal and then justifying that as grounds to impose regulation don't square with this requirement. Thus, so long as it is not imminently lawless to possess a firearm as, say, a felon, in a given nation, I'm not sure how GAR#399 could allow a resolution to make that the case without reading the blocker clause as effectively useless. Otherwise, the WA could assume mere possession of a weapon is a lawless act.

I struggle to see many circumstances where 399's blocker exception permits the WA much freedom when interpreted in the context of it's stated goal to reserve domestic gun laws to individual nations.

What I am hearing is that you agree unknowledgeable individuals pose a danger of something (you call it "risk of negligent action"). But in your view, that danger is not a danger of imminent lawless action, because negligently killing or wounding someone with a firearm you don't know how to use might not be considered "already illegal" in some countries.

The problem with that reasoning is it renders the exception a dead letter. No further regulations could ever pass, despite the express grant of authority in GAR #399's provisions, because any single member nation would be able to claim that such-and-such action with a firearm is not "already illegal" for them. "Killing someone with a gun for any reason or no reason is totally lawful here," they would say.

Put simply, for the exception language to have any meaning at all, the WA must retain some kind of authority to decide by democratic process what the scope of "lawless action" in GAR #399 is taken to mean.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: I can't agree with this assessment. As somebody who has been trained and occasionally teaches new shooters, there is no particular risk of lawless action in new shooters. While they may pose a risk of negligent action, even the most idiotic and unaware shooters rarely place themselves in a position to break the law by merely possessing a firearm without training. Frankly, I don't think policy stemmin,g from this assumption is legal under GAR#399 based on that nuance.

The danger of imminent lawless action needs to be more than a bare probability. It needs to be a sufficient enough risk of an action which is already illegal. Making an action illegal and then justifying that as grounds to impose regulation don't square with this requirement. Thus, so long as it is not imminently lawless to possess a firearm as, say, a felon, in a given nation, I'm not sure how GAR#399 could allow a resolution to make that the case without reading the blocker clause as effectively useless. Otherwise, the WA could assume mere possession of a weapon is a lawless act.

I struggle to see many circumstances where 399's blocker exception permits the WA much freedom when interpreted in the context of it's stated goal to reserve domestic gun laws to individual nations.

What I am hearing is that you agree unknowledgeable individuals pose a danger of something (you call it "risk of negligent action"). But in your view, that danger is not a danger of imminent lawless action, because negligently killing or wounding someone with a firearm you don't know how to use might not be considered "already illegal" in some countries.

The problem with that reasoning is it renders the exception a dead letter. No further regulations could ever pass, despite the express grant of authority in GAR #399's provisions, because any single member nation would be able to claim that such-and-such action with a firearm is not "already illegal" for them. "Killing someone with a gun for any reason or no reason is totally lawful here," they would say.

Put simply, for the exception language to have any meaning at all, the WA must retain some kind of authority to decide by democratic process what the scope of "lawless action" in GAR #399 is taken to mean.

OOC: it does. Unrelated crimes, which the WA already addresses. War criminals and such.

That's my interpretation. I'm happy to be out voted on submission, but the blocker clause is very clear regarding the limited nature of the exception. There's no presumption of legality for nonrepeals. Either we give it great weight or we have to give it almost none.

[Wallenburg]

If 399's blocker clause upsets you, then repeal it. That you don't like its implications does not create a right to contradict it.

[Unibot III]

Isn't that what GAR #399 was supposed to allow me to do?

I'll review your arguments in good faith, think on it, and update my position or otherwise post a rebuttal when able to do so in a timely manner. But as to the statement quoted above, frankly, GA 399's blocker provision was meant (as in "supposed") to make it basically impossible for any gun control or gun liberalisation regulation to be passed in the future and to do it without falling afoul of the blocker rule (nb, when it was passed, "Gun Control" still existed as a category).

OOC: GA#399 would not be the first blocker to later be found to not block a damn thing due to poor phrasing. “National Economic Freedoms,” comes to mind.

The so-called blocker says it allows legislation that aims to prevent guns from being sold or used by those that pose a danger of unlawful activity — since anyone committing these actions poses such a danger, the language in the blocker effectively allows any gun control measure that can possibly be conceived if it has the right intention. Even gun control measures that couldn’t possibly work, that are still intended to limit possession among these individuals, still fit this caveat. It’s a gapping hole.

Regardless I think someone should revisit GA#399. It’s ridiculous that the same resolution that tries to block gun control regulation on NatSov grounds, opens the door to gun deregulation in the very next clause — which is it, State Rights or Gun Rights? Why is it okay for the WA to let people be blown to bits in the name of National Sovereignty, but turn a blind eye to National Sovereignty if it means deregulating more “hunting” equipment?

The WA’s Gun Lobby is trying to have its AR-15s and eat them too!

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: GA#399 would not be the first blocker to later be found to not block a damn thing due to poor phrasing. “National Economic Freedoms,” comes to mind.

The so-called blocker says it allows legislation that aims to prevent guns from being sold or used by those that pose a danger of unlawful activity — since anyone committing these actions poses such a danger, the language in the blocker effectively allows any gun control measure that can possibly be conceived if it has the right intention. Even gun control measures that couldn’t possibly work, that are still intended to limit possession among these individuals, still fit this caveat. It’s a gapping [sic] hole.

GA 399 also requires imminence, which is the most restrictive portion of the blocker clause. Your statement above – underlined – ignores that factor.

Regardless I think someone should revisit GA#399. It’s ridiculous that the same resolution that tries to block gun control regulation on NatSov grounds, opens the door to gun deregulation in the very next clause — which is it, State Rights or Gun Rights? Why is it okay for the WA to let people be blown to bits in the name of National Sovereignty, but turn a blind eye to National Sovereignty if it means deregulating more “hunting” equipment?

The position taken in GA 399 is eclectic, yes. The reason why it did that is to block off as much of both Gun Control: Tighten and Gun Control: Relax (or whatever the proper areas of effect were called, I frankly don't remember,) that it could block off without falling afoul of the blocker rule.

[Unibot III]

OOC: GA#399 would not be the first blocker to later be found to not block a damn thing due to poor phrasing. “National Economic Freedoms,” comes to mind.

The so-called blocker says it allows legislation that aims to prevent guns from being sold or used by those that pose a danger of unlawful activity — since anyone committing these actions poses such a danger, the language in the blocker effectively allows any gun control measure that can possibly be conceived if it has the right intention. Even gun control measures that couldn’t possibly work, that are still intended to limit possession among these individuals, still fit this caveat. It’s a gapping [sic] hole.

GA 399 also requires imminence, which is the most restrictive portion of the blocker clause. Your statement above – underlined – ignores that factor.

Regardless I think someone should revisit GA#399. It’s ridiculous that the same resolution that tries to block gun control regulation on NatSov grounds, opens the door to gun deregulation in the very next clause — which is it, State Rights or Gun Rights? Why is it okay for the WA to let people be blown to bits in the name of National Sovereignty, but turn a blind eye to National Sovereignty if it means deregulating more “hunting” equipment?

The position taken in GA 399 is eclectic, yes. The reason why it did that is to block off as much of both Gun Control: Tighten and Gun Control: Relax (or whatever the proper areas of effect were called, I frankly don't remember,) that it could block off without falling afoul of the blocker rule.

Yes, I saw the inclusion of the word “imminent” but I see no reason why it would establish a legal test that is particularly insurmountable or specific.

To satisfy the exemption in GA#399, the *intention* of a provision needs to be to prevent imminent unlawful activity, but if the effect is to prevent unlawful activity that is both imminent and non-imminent, the blocker does not distinguish between effects, only intent.

Realistically, many common gun control measures address both imminent crimes and non-imminent crimes without discrimination, so all the author has to do is establish that the intention of the gun control measure has imminency in mind.

Effectively this means GA#399 does not block almost any conceivable gun control measure at all if your intention is consistent with its exemptions.

This is where my reference to the N.E.F case comes into play, I think the key thing is that the author should use their preamble to explicitly establish its intentions, borrowing language directly from GA#399.


For instance, the following clauses are different from one another..

1. Exempts measures that prevent imminent unlawful activity
2. Exclusively exempts measures to prevent imminent unlawful activity, provided these measures do not interfere with non-imminent unlawful activity

The latter establishes something like an Oakes Test that requires the exemption be rationally connected and limited in scope. The former doesn’t exclude anything, if you’re preventing imminent unlawful activity, it’s allowed even if it’s also preventing non-imminent lawful activity.

The following clauses are also different:

1. Exempts measures that prevent imminent unlawful activity
2. Exempts measures intended to prevent imminent unlawful activity

The burden to establish the connection between the measure and the outcome is far less in the latter case.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm satisfied with the following:

To satisfy the exemption in GA#399, the *intention* of a provision needs to be to prevent imminent unlawful activity, but if the effect is to prevent unlawful activity that is both imminent and non-imminent, the blocker does not distinguish between effects, only intent.

A factual claim or assertion to that effect would have to be made in the preamble, per prior precedents related to NEF.