[DRAFT] International Gun License Requirement

[Indiana Controlled Florida]

CATEGORY: Regulation/Safety

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING that several member states do not require citizens to have a gun license to operate firearms

WORRIED that without gun licenses, it is easier for violent or deranged criminals to gain access to firearms

HOPING to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action.

HEREBY

I. For the sake of the legislation, these following definitions shall take place
Ia. DEFINING a firearm as a gun that is meant to be portable

II. Requiring that all member states require all citizens in that member state to have to get a gun license to own and operate a firearm.

III. In order for a citizen to get a gun license, they must follow these steps
IIIa. A citizen in a member state shall apply INPERSON or ONLINE at either a government building/a government website.
IIIb. A citizen in a member state, on the application form, would list their personal information
IIIc. A citizen in a member state would wait until the background check is finished processing which is to see if they
IIIca. A citizen has committed an violent criminal offense in the past
IIIcb. A citizen is a under the legal limit that is eligible for a firearm in that member state
IIIcc. A citizen is under legal investigation

IV. After the background check, two things may take place
IVa. If the citizen passes the background check, they are to be notified using a phone call/text/in-person notification to head to the nearest administrative/government building to pick up their gun license and are now eligble to purchase firearms that the member state has permitted to be allowed to the public
IVb. If the citizen fails the background check, there are to be notified of their failure.

V. Requires that all citizen in all member states have to renew their gun license every year in order to remain onto their firearms.
Va. The citizen would have to go through the background check again to make sure that they are still within the boundaries to remain onto firearms
Vb. If the citizen refuses to renew their license, their firearms are to be taken away by any law agency of that member state.

Hope you enjoyed the draft. Will be needing feedback on the strength and anything that is needed to be added. Thanks.

[Tinhampton]

1: Create a gun licensing system and invite applications
2: Make it illegal to apply for a gun license
3: Background checks will register the gun license application as a crime
4: "if they break IIIca. that they will never be able to own a firearm"
5: You have banned guns



Alternatively, you could dismantle all of your mobile phone masts and cut off all telephone lines, thereby requiring your nation to use means other than "a phone call/text" to notify new holders of gun licenses...

GA#399, Article 5 makes this resolution moot (and there isn't a "Gun Legislation" category) - but your proposal still contains substantial loopholes nonetheless.

[Indiana Controlled Florida]

1: Create a gun licensing system and invite applications
2: Make it illegal to apply for a gun license
3: Background checks will register the gun license application as a crime
4: "if they break IIIca. that they will never be able to own a firearm"
5: You have banned guns

(Image)

Alternatively, you could dismantle all of your mobile phone masts and cut off all telephone lines, thereby requiring your nation to use means other than "a phone call/text" to notify new holders of gun licenses...

GA#399, Article 5 makes this resolution moot (and there isn't a "Gun Legislation" category) - but your proposal still contains substantial loopholes nonetheless.

Couldn't this fall under GA#399 Clause 5b to prevent individuals that pose a danger to their home nation from accessing firearms, or does this go too far? And, how would you say to fix the issue of the loophole that contains banning making applying for gun licenses a crime?

[PotatoFarmers]

...how is this a international thing (as written).

"I am going to argue that this resolution is more than clause 5b allows and everything else might end up being contradiction of clause 5 of #399." - David

[Indiana Controlled Florida]

...how is this a international thing (as written).

"I am going to argue that this resolution is more than clause 5b allows and everything else might end up being contradiction of clause 5 of #399." - David

Do you have any solutions to make it an international thing? Just pointing it out won't help me.

[PotatoFarmers]

...how is this a international thing (as written).

"I am going to argue that this resolution is more than clause 5b allows and everything else might end up being contradiction of clause 5 of #399." - David

Do you have any solutions to make it an international thing? Just pointing it out won't help me.

"I would argue that a resolution that exactly does what is required by clause 5b is what you should write. Not a generic licensing policy.."

[Indiana Controlled Florida]

Do you have any solutions to make it an international thing? Just pointing it out won't help me.

"I would argue that a resolution that exactly does what is required by clause 5b is what you should write. Not a generic licensing policy.."

"I would argue that this generic licensing policy could help set up a boundary for criminals to access firearms in member states, which I believe should help it call under Clause 5, Subclause 2. However, I am not the most experienced, and I know you are way more experienced to me, so tell me, what would you do other than a generic licensing policy? I may take it into consideration if I believe I could write it in a way where it could pass."

[PotatoFarmers]

"I would argue that a resolution that exactly does what is required by clause 5b is what you should write. Not a generic licensing policy.."

"I would argue that this generic licensing policy could help set up a boundary for criminals to access firearms in member states, which I believe should help it call under Clause 5, Subclause 2. However, I am not the most experienced, and I know you are way more experienced to me, so tell me, what would you do other than a generic licensing policy? I may take it into consideration if I believe I could write it in a way where it could pass."

"I leave you to consider that question then? At this rate if I continue to answer I might as well write the resolution. I probably will find drafting such a resolution a tall order, and I rather come back with a re-draft of my drafted resolutions" - David

[Kenmoria]

“I have put some comments on this draft in a fetching purple. At least, it is fetching to me. I would rather people did not have guns in the first place, as a general rule. However, requiring licensing for those states for whom bearing weapon-type arms is deemed as important as bearing physiology-type arms would be a positive change. There is, thus, a seed of a good idea here. However, the execution could do with some improvement. I hope that you will find my corrections helpful.” Lewitt slides an annotated piece of paper towards the delegation for Indiana Controlled Florida.

CATEGORY: Gun Legislation This is not a valid category, so the gnomes staffing the General Assembly will not appreciate a delegation trying to submit a proposal under it. I would explore a category of either Moral Decency or Regulation: Safety.

STRENGH: (Not the greatest at deciding, need someone with more experience to guide me to know the strengh of my proposal. If you went with Regulation: Safety, then there would not need to be a strength. Under most categories, however, including Moral Decency, this seems to be significant. It contains mandates with substantial effect, so it is not mild, but it does not ban ownership of guns entirely or do anything of that magnitude, so it is not strong either.

World Assembly, Add the word: “the” before this.

RECONGIZING that several member states do not require citizens to have a gun license to operate firearms There is a typographic error in the first word here.

WORRIED that without gun licenses, it would be easier for criminals to gain access to firearms You are saying that this is currently the case in the above clause, so it is not a hypothetical. Therefore, you should have written “it is easier” in place of “it would be easier”.

NOTING that gun licenses could set up a barrier for criminals What does this clause add that the above clause does not? Also, there ought to be commas after each of the preambulatory clauses.

HEREBY

I. For the sake of the proposal, these following definitions shall take place If this proposal passes, it will be a resolution, so use resolution throughout as a reference to your legislation.
Ia. DEFINING a firearm as a gun that is meant to be portable, examples being a handgun, revolver, or a rifle Definitions do not need to feature examples.
1b. DEFINING a criminal as someone who breaks a law of a member state This would include people who have committed parking offences, offences with regards to building regulations, and offences of online piracy. Was this your intention? Most people would define a criminal as someone who has broken the criminal law in particular. Also, criminality is a common concept, so there is no need to define it here.

II. Requiring that all member states set up gun licenses that all citizens in that member state need to get in order to legally own a firearm For a very significant clause in the proposal, this is rather bare. What does it meant to “set up gun licenses”?

III. In order for someone to get these gun licenses, these subclauses shall list out the steps to get these licenses This is worded very strangely. Also, very little of what is below is necessary. For example, why do you require a waiting period? What if a nation is very efficient? Does it need to deliberately waste time? What if a nation is busy dealing with a famine, a natural disaster, and a foreign invasion? Does it nonetheless have to ensure that five days is the maximum? Why is two months a limit? Why is there even a limit on how recently someone could have moved to the country? I have so many questions that, were I write them all here, I would break my pen. Speaking less rhetorically, a lot of this is more to do with national or even subnational concerns, where the World Assembly would achieve less beneficial outcomes by being involved.
IIIa. A citizen in a member state shall apply INPERSON or ONLINE at either a government building/a government website. Capitalisation of occasional words is unnecessary.
IIIb. A citizen in a member state, on the application form, would list their personal information
IIIc. A citizen in a member state would wait a 3-5 day waiting period so the member state can launch a background check on the induvial that is applying for the gun license to see if
IIIca. A citizen has committed an criminal offense in the past
IIIcb. A citizen has recently moved to the country (Citizens cannot apply for a gun license if they have recently moved to the country, 1 day-2 months. This is for anti-terrorist reasons.) You don’t need to explain your reasoning in the middle of the active clauses. However, in this case, this clause can be done away with entirely, because it allows very little room for less paranoid nations to legislate differently.
IIIcc. A citizen is a under the legal limit that is eligible for a firearm in that member state
IIIcd. A citizen is under legal investigation

IV. After the background check, two things can go down “Go down” is not quite legalistic language. Also, again, the below clauses are far too micromanaging.
IVa. If the citizen passes the background check, they are to be notified using a phone call/text to head to the nearest administrative/government building to pick up their gun license and are now eligble to purchase firearms that the member state has permitted to be allowed to the public
IVb. If the citizen fails the background check, there are to be notified of their failure, and are to be notified, if they break IIIca. that they will never be able to own a firearm. However, if they break IIIcb, IIIcc, and IIIcd, then they are to be notified that they should apply whenever they no longer break these subclauses

V. Requires that all citizen in all member states have to renew their gun license every year in order to remain onto their firearms.
Va. The citizen would have to go through the background check again to make sure that they are still within the boundaries to remain onto firearms
Vb. If the citizen refuses to renew their license, their firearms are to be taken away by the Firearm Agency of that member state. Kenmoria, for example, does not have a “firearm agency”. Also, why can the police not do this? Or, why not any other law-enforcing body a nation might possess? This is not a detail that you need to specify.

[Juansonia]

RECONGIZING that several member states do not require citizens to have a gun license to operate firearms

"Really? Most do, unless they outright mandate gun ownership."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

WORRIED that without gun licenses, it would be easier for criminals to gain access to firearms

"And how is this worrying? The term 'criminal' refers to a wide variety of acts and persons. I am sure that a marijuana farmer having a gun is not of concern. If you were referring specifically to those who have a history of violent crime, you should have been specific."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

Ia. DEFINING a firearm as a gun that is meant to be portable, examples being a handgun, revolver, or a rifle

"While I do not understand the requirement that firearms be meant to be portable, I am more concerned as to the lack of definition of what a 'gun' is. Do combustion-based projectile launchers count as guns? Do pneumatic launchers count? What about spring-powered paintball launchers? Directed energy weapons? Ballistic knives? Non-firing imitation weapons? Your proposal, by failing to define what a gun is, fails to adequately define what a firearm is."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

1b. DEFINING a criminal as someone who breaks a law of a member state

"If a Tinhamptonian, while in Tinhampton, violated the law of Wallenburg, said Tinhamptonian would be a criminal per this definition. This is absurd."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

IIIa. A citizen in a member state shall apply INPERSON or ONLINE at either a government building/a government website.

"Why require applications be 'INPERSON or ONLINE'? Many nations do not yet have access to the internet."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

IIIca. A citizen has committed an criminal offense in the past

"Need I remind you that many crimes, such as the bullshit charge of 'jaywalking', have no bearing on whether someone can be trusted with a firearm?"
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

IVa. If the citizen passes the background check, they are to be notified using a phone call/text

"Not every WA member has telephone infrastructure, and those that do have a scammer problem. While there is no justification for a state to conduct official communications by means as spoofable as telephone or SMS, it would be better to not even mention means of communication in this proposal"
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

if they break IIIca. that they will never be able to own a firearm.

"Have you ever heard of rehabilitation-based justice? Not every legal system is based on sadism and ignorance of reoffending rates."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

V. Requires that all citizen in all member states have to renew their gun license every year in order to remain onto their firearms.

"Given how slow bureaucracy can be, one year is far too frequent to renew anything more than a school ID."
- Maria-Fernanda Novo, Ambassador

---

"General Assembly Resolution 399 Expressly leaves internal arms trading policy to member states, with exceptions under clause five. Even if such is repealed, Juansonia will oppose any international regulation of internal policy that does not meet those specific exceptions."- Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

To get around GAR #399's attempt at a blocker, you must include the following language in your preamble: "Seeking to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action." After that you can propose whatever you want.

The Gun Control category was removed from the game. Now Regulation/Safety is the proper category/AoE for resolutions like this.

You should not try to tackle gun control with your very first resolution. I am very stubborn but even I have decided it is not worth the time and effort of trying to carry the torch on this issue. Not enough people are willing to turn and face it.

[Indiana Controlled Florida]

“I have put some comments on this draft in a fetching purple. At least, it is fetching to me. I would rather people did not have guns in the first place, as a general rule. However, requiring licensing for those states for whom bearing weapon-type arms is deemed as important as bearing physiology-type arms would be a positive change. There is, thus, a seed of a good idea here. However, the execution could do with some improvement. I hope that you will find my corrections helpful.” Lewitt slides an annotated piece of paper towards the delegation for Indiana Controlled Florida.

CATEGORY: Gun Legislation This is not a valid category, so the gnomes staffing the General Assembly will not appreciate a delegation trying to submit a proposal under it. I would explore a category of either Moral Decency or Regulation: Safety.

STRENGH: (Not the greatest at deciding, need someone with more experience to guide me to know the strengh of my proposal. If you went with Regulation: Safety, then there would not need to be a strength. Under most categories, however, including Moral Decency, this seems to be significant. It contains mandates with substantial effect, so it is not mild, but it does not ban ownership of guns entirely or do anything of that magnitude, so it is not strong either.

World Assembly, Add the word: “the” before this.

RECONGIZING that several member states do not require citizens to have a gun license to operate firearms There is a typographic error in the first word here.

WORRIED that without gun licenses, it would be easier for criminals to gain access to firearms You are saying that this is currently the case in the above clause, so it is not a hypothetical. Therefore, you should have written “it is easier” in place of “it would be easier”.

NOTING that gun licenses could set up a barrier for criminals What does this clause add that the above clause does not? Also, there ought to be commas after each of the preambulatory clauses.

HEREBY

I. For the sake of the proposal, these following definitions shall take place If this proposal passes, it will be a resolution, so use resolution throughout as a reference to your legislation.
Ia. DEFINING a firearm as a gun that is meant to be portable, examples being a handgun, revolver, or a rifle Definitions do not need to feature examples.
1b. DEFINING a criminal as someone who breaks a law of a member state This would include people who have committed parking offences, offences with regards to building regulations, and offences of online piracy. Was this your intention? Most people would define a criminal as someone who has broken the criminal law in particular. Also, criminality is a common concept, so there is no need to define it here.

II. Requiring that all member states set up gun licenses that all citizens in that member state need to get in order to legally own a firearm For a very significant clause in the proposal, this is rather bare. What does it meant to “set up gun licenses”?

III. In order for someone to get these gun licenses, these subclauses shall list out the steps to get these licenses This is worded very strangely. Also, very little of what is below is necessary. For example, why do you require a waiting period? What if a nation is very efficient? Does it need to deliberately waste time? What if a nation is busy dealing with a famine, a natural disaster, and a foreign invasion? Does it nonetheless have to ensure that five days is the maximum? Why is two months a limit? Why is there even a limit on how recently someone could have moved to the country? I have so many questions that, were I write them all here, I would break my pen. Speaking less rhetorically, a lot of this is more to do with national or even subnational concerns, where the World Assembly would achieve less beneficial outcomes by being involved.
IIIa. A citizen in a member state shall apply INPERSON or ONLINE at either a government building/a government website. Capitalisation of occasional words is unnecessary.
IIIb. A citizen in a member state, on the application form, would list their personal information
IIIc. A citizen in a member state would wait a 3-5 day waiting period so the member state can launch a background check on the induvial that is applying for the gun license to see if
IIIca. A citizen has committed an criminal offense in the past
IIIcb. A citizen has recently moved to the country (Citizens cannot apply for a gun license if they have recently moved to the country, 1 day-2 months. This is for anti-terrorist reasons.) You don’t need to explain your reasoning in the middle of the active clauses. However, in this case, this clause can be done away with entirely, because it allows very little room for less paranoid nations to legislate differently.
IIIcc. A citizen is a under the legal limit that is eligible for a firearm in that member state
IIIcd. A citizen is under legal investigation

IV. After the background check, two things can go down “Go down” is not quite legalistic language. Also, again, the below clauses are far too micromanaging.
IVa. If the citizen passes the background check, they are to be notified using a phone call/text to head to the nearest administrative/government building to pick up their gun license and are now eligble to purchase firearms that the member state has permitted to be allowed to the public
IVb. If the citizen fails the background check, there are to be notified of their failure, and are to be notified, if they break IIIca. that they will never be able to own a firearm. However, if they break IIIcb, IIIcc, and IIIcd, then they are to be notified that they should apply whenever they no longer break these subclauses

V. Requires that all citizen in all member states have to renew their gun license every year in order to remain onto their firearms.
Va. The citizen would have to go through the background check again to make sure that they are still within the boundaries to remain onto firearms
Vb. If the citizen refuses to renew their license, their firearms are to be taken away by the Firearm Agency of that member state. Kenmoria, for example, does not have a “firearm agency”. Also, why can the police not do this? Or, why not any other law-enforcing body a nation might possess? This is not a detail that you need to specify.

Thank you! I will get around to making these changes, but they will take a while. I might fix the draft on Saturday. And, once again, thank you for giving helpful feedback!

[Indiana Controlled Florida]

Reworded some of the clauses to make it sound easier, got rid of some clauses. Other stuff will be changed, that is for certain. Continued feedback would be great

[Bananaistan]

To get around GAR #399's attempt at a blocker, you must include the following language in your preamble: "Seeking to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action." After that you can propose whatever you want.
...

OOC: This is not true.

5b in GAR#399 is "future regulations which seek to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action".

The actual impact of the operative clauses would be assessed against this section by GenSec under the contradiction rule.

Atm, the whole thing seems like general regulations on everyone regardless of any danger or imminence.

[Indiana Controlled Florida]

To get around GAR #399's attempt at a blocker, you must include the following language in your preamble: "Seeking to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action." After that you can propose whatever you want.
...

OOC: This is not true.

5b in GAR#399 is "future regulations which seek to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action".

The actual impact of the operative clauses would be assessed against this section by GenSec under the contradiction rule.

Atm, the whole thing seems like general regulations on everyone regardless of any danger or imminence.

Moderate/Adminstator/Whatever Position you are in, do you have any thoughts on improving the legislation?

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

To get around GAR #399's attempt at a blocker, you must include the following language in your preamble: "Seeking to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action." After that you can propose whatever you want.
...

OOC: This is not true.

5b in GAR#399 is "future regulations which seek to prevent firearms from being sold to or used by individuals that pose a danger of performing imminent lawless action".

The actual impact of the operative clauses would be assessed against this section by GenSec under the contradiction rule.

Atm, the whole thing seems like general regulations on everyone regardless of any danger or imminence.

Perhaps I was too flippant.

But the plain language and text of GAR #399 allows an exception based on what a future proposal “seeks” to do. What matters, according to GAR #399’s chosen language, are the intentions. GAR #399 could have based the exception on something else (such as whether a future regulation would have an “actual impact” only on yada yada yada), rather than what the future regulations seek. But didn’t.

So if a proposal asserts the necessary purpose, I believe reason and plain language reading will lead you to see that there would be no contradiction of the GAR #399 blocker (which, btw, always far exceeded the “arms trading” scope that proposal was supposed to primarily be about).

[WayNeacTia]

No.

That is all.....

[Indiana Controlled Florida]

No.

That is all.....

Thank you for your valuable feedback that definitely helped the draft in a positive way.

[El Lazaro]

1: Create a gun licensing system and invite applications
2: Make it illegal to apply for a gun license
3: Background checks will register the gun license application as a crime
4: "if they break IIIca. that they will never be able to own a firearm"
5: You have banned guns

(Image)

Alternatively, you could dismantle all of your mobile phone masts and cut off all telephone lines, thereby requiring your nation to use means other than "a phone call/text" to notify new holders of gun licenses...

GA#399, Article 5 makes this resolution moot (and there isn't a "Gun Legislation" category) - but your proposal still contains substantial loopholes nonetheless.

Is there anything stopping gun bans in member states right now? The WA using the passage of this resolution to ban guns everywhere, even if possible, isn’t never going to happen.

Regardless, the targeting of the proposal is a definitely a contradiction of 5b, and the idea of regulating non-suspects with licensure seems to violate the intent as well. Even if the specifics were much better, I’m skeptical about general gun licensure as WA legislation.

[Heidgaudr]

"Had the puppet government during the Alorn Incursion used similar requirements for purchasing firearms, our worker Revolution would have been frustrated before it could have even begun. If you wish to solve gun violence, there are better solutions - such as investing in mental health services and cracking down on right-wing extremism - than to make it even more difficult for workers to arm themselves. Opposed."

[Life empire]

I don't like the renewall clause, it would be better to take it away when a crime is commited then checking every year for a crime (for obvious reasons)

[Life empire]

1: Create a gun licensing system and invite applications
2: Make it illegal to apply for a gun license
3: Background checks will register the gun license application as a crime
4: "if they break IIIca. that they will never be able to own a firearm"
5: You have banned guns

(Image)

Alternatively, you could dismantle all of your mobile phone masts and cut off all telephone lines, thereby requiring your nation to use means other than "a phone call/text" to notify new holders of gun licenses...

GA#399, Article 5 makes this resolution moot (and there isn't a "Gun Legislation" category) - but your proposal still contains substantial loopholes nonetheless.

thats just dumb, then just state upfront your banning guns (which is still bad)

[Philimbesi]

Licensing is not an international issue. If my colleague would like to discuss the sale and transport over international borders, we would listen intently but feel that specific license requirements need to be more specific to the culture and traditions of individual nations.

Nigel Youlkin
USP Ambassador to the WA.

[Greater Cesnica]

"We very strongly oppose any and all measures to regulate firearms acquisition and possession at the international level. We will leverage any and all measures available to us to prevent the passage of this proposal."

[Outer Sparta]

Your proposal doesn't seem to do much and why do you think this is an international issue? How would licensing fit in that catch-all scope when dealing with firearms of all different kinds from different nations? I'm not convinced your measures are conducive to reducing gun violence and ultimately have various loopholes in your definitions.