[DRAFT] Civilian Weapons Act

[Chester Pearson]

I'm supporting this, but afraid the clause which allows nations to freely define "firearms" may prevent any legislature acting upon the safe use of firearms.

I dear to god hope so....

[People Who Say Ni]

I agree that the WA should not concern itself with the legality of gun ownership, but surely there could be room for other proposals which deal with firearms.

[Chester Pearson]

I agree that the WA should not concern itself with the legality of gun ownership, but surely there could be room for other proposals which deal with firearms.

Why? The only weapons that the WA should be concerning itself with are military weapons. Just because Joe Sixpack owns a small armoury of hunting rifles and handguns in the basement of his house in "Nowhereville", really isn't a legitimate reason for the international community to jump up and down and say "WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, BEFORE SOMEONE IN HIS HOMETOWN GETS HURT!!!" That is the job of his National government.

If you allow your citizens to have guns, SUPER! Doesn't affect us one way or the other. If you allow your citizens to possess nuclear weapons, then that does affect us.... See my point?

[Herzil]

First: thanks for clarifying earlier on the police budget issue.

I agree that the WA should not concern itself with the legality of gun ownership, but surely there could be room for other proposals which deal with firearms.

Why? The only weapons that the WA should be concerning itself with are military weapons. Just because Joe Sixpack owns a small armoury of hunting rifles and handguns in the basement of his house in "Nowhereville", really isn't a legitimate reason for the international community to jump up and down and say "WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS, BEFORE SOMEONE IN HIS HOMETOWN GETS HURT!!!" That is the job of his National government.

If you allow your citizens to have guns, SUPER! Doesn't affect us one way or the other. If you allow your citizens to possess nuclear weapons, then that does affect us.... See my point?

Second, Its about time someone removed JOE from the pedestal of "freedom rights arguements" and if possible lock him up!

Third : Section 3 which some nations seem to be against is what makes this proposal so great.
It enable us to have a RECORD of every "Joe" who wish to own a gun. making it much eaiser on law enforcers , national and international regardless of whether your nation thinks every citizen should own a gun or not

[Aetrina]

We would support this as an acceptable end to the endless debate over gun "rights" Each nation should be allowed to make policy concerning gun "rights" and firearm possession by civilians. This has never been a WA issue regardless of the conservative position to the contrary. We applaud the author(s) of this draft and should this come to a vote, which we strongly hope that it does it will have our support.

[Chester Pearson]

Second draft is up..... If no one has any major issues here, going to submit this within the next few days before the New Molsana Ambassador is released from jail, so if they submit that travesty of theirs it will be illegal....

Warmest regards,

[Ardchoille]

I c/pd these quotes earlier when I was getting my thoughts together on the blocker question, so I may as well post 'em (my emphasis):

Resolutions cannot be "repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation.

To summarize regarding blockers: being a blocker isn't illegal. It's being a blocker and nothing else that gets a proposal dinged. That, or closing off an entire area of WA legislation -- say, "RESERVES to nations the power to make all decisions on all matters concerning the human rights of their citizens and residents" <snip>.

If this were in force in a Resolution --

Member nations shall be free to legislate on the matter of firearms ownership as they see fit subject to current international law

-- then I can't see how the WA could instruct member nations to do either of these:

"Tighten" increases government regulation on the private use of firearms while "Relax" reduces these regulations.

And if the WA can't "tighten" or "relax", you've made the Gun Control category inoperable.

In short, it looks to me as if that clause closes off an entire area of WA legislation.

[Bears Armed]

If this were in force in a Resolution --

Member nations shall be free to legislate on the matter of firearms ownership as they see fit subject to current international law

-- then I can't see how the WA could instruct member nations to do either of these:

"Tighten" increases government regulation on the private use of firearms while "Relax" reduces these regulations.

And if the WA can't "tighten" or "relax", you've made the Gun Control category inoperable.

So if that clause was modified to say

Member nations shall be free to legislate on the matter of firearms ownership within their own territories as they see fit, subject to current international law

thus leaving it possible for the GA to tighten/relax laws on the international trade in firearms, would that be enough to make it legal after all?

[Alqania]

If this were in force in a Resolution -- -- then I can't see how the WA could instruct member nations to do either of these:

And if the WA can't "tighten" or "relax", you've made the Gun Control category inoperable.

So if that clause was modified to say

Member nations shall be free to legislate on the matter of firearms ownership within their own territories as they see fit, subject to current international law

thus leaving it possible for the GA to tighten/relax laws on the international trade in firearms, would that be enough to make it legal after all?

Princess Christine shook her head sceptically. "I would imagine that a proposal dealing with international trade in firearms would belong in the Free Trade category, since that category has been redefined to encompass both deregulation and restriction of international trade, not in Gun Control, so no, still illegal as blocking the Gun Control category I would hazard a guess, not that I presume myself capable of speaking for the Secretariat of course."

[Bears Armed]

Princess Christine shook her head sceptically. "I would imagine that a proposal dealing with international trade in firearms would belong in the Free Trade category, since that category has been redefined to encompass both deregulation and restriction of international trade, not in Gun Control, so no, still illegal as blocking the Gun Control category I would hazard a guess, not that I presume myself capable of speaking for the Secretariat of course."

Well, according to past Secretariat rulings proposals on the international trade in recreational drugs belong in the 'Recreational Drugs' category, so by analogy I'd presume that proposals on the international trade in firearms (at least trade other than for military/police usage) would fall within the 'Gun Control' category.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: I don't think we can guess what category some hypothetical future proposal would be in. There definitely have been arms trade proposals written in Gun Control, but there have also been ones written in International Security, Free Trade, and Global Disarmament, and worded properly you could probably try to squeeze them into something else, too.

The new blocker rules were written at the time of the UN>WA switch, and were a reaction to the number of blockers in the late UN. The mods didn't want people blocking off entire categories. Given that is quite explicitly what is being done here, I really don't see anything to argue in Ardchoille's ruling (for once!) and I'm not sure why this was even considered.

I will say though, again, that I think it's unnecessary. New Molsona's proposal failed by 80%. Why are we trying to block something that has no chance of passing anyway?

[Chester Pearson]

I will say though, again, that I think it's unnecessary. New Molsona's proposal failed by 80%. Why are we trying to block something that has no chance of passing anyway?

To stop them in the future, so as not to waste three and a half days of voting time, on something that has no chance of passing....

I will have to take a look at that blocker clause, to somehow make it legal. Feedback on that would be much appreciated.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I will say though, again, that I think it's unnecessary. New Molsona's proposal failed by 80%. Why are we trying to block something that has no chance of passing anyway?

To stop them in the future, so as not to waste three and a half days of voting time, on something that has no chance of passing....

I will have to take a look at that blocker clause, to somehow make it legal. Feedback on that would be much appreciated.

OOC: You do understand that to pass this, we will have to spend three and a half days' of voting time, right? I'm not sure I see the economy.

As to how to word your clause to make it legal, the entire premise is illegal. If it blocks off a whole category, it's illegal. If it doesn't, then it fails to accomplish what you want and it wouldn't actually block proposals on Gun Control.

[Chester Pearson]

To stop them in the future, so as not to waste three and a half days of voting time, on something that has no chance of passing....

I will have to take a look at that blocker clause, to somehow make it legal. Feedback on that would be much appreciated.

OOC: You do understand that to pass this, we will have to spend three and a half days' of voting time, right? I'm not sure I see the economy.

As to how to word your clause to make it legal, the entire premise is illegal. If it blocks off a whole category, it's illegal. If it doesn't, then it fails to accomplish what you want and it wouldn't actually block proposals on Gun Control.

Would you rather waste three and a half days voting time ten times, or spend it once, to stop that? New Molsona is not going to give up, and will continue to resubmit that same fucking proposal over and over.....

As for the blocker itself, it is not to block gun control itself, it is to determine once and for all if the WA can make MANDATORY gun ownership legal or not. That is what we are trying to block here. The more I think about it, the more I know how to reword that clause. I need to check a few things, but I believe it can be done....

[People Who Say Ni]

I will say though, again, that I think it's unnecessary. New Molsona's proposal failed by 80%. Why are we trying to block something that has no chance of passing anyway?

To stop them in the future, so as not to waste three and a half days of voting time, on something that has no chance of passing....

I will have to take a look at that blocker clause, to somehow make it legal. Feedback on that would be much appreciated.

That could go both ways, people could be spending time drafting/voting on a repeal bill, as well.
You wouldn't be blocking off the entire gun control category if you legislated solely on non-commercial, non-recreational and non-military use of weapons. You would be allowing people to legislate, within the WA, on things like hunting and whatnot. Even though a hunting bill, for example, would have little international relevance, it would still be legal and fit into gun control.

[Normlpeople]

While we understand this proposal had to "do something" to make it legal ambassador, there are many ways to do this. A clause requiring a firearm safety course, for example. As it stands now, it appears to us as if you are attempting to pass a piece of gun control legislation under the guise of a blocker.

We are not fooled and will not be supporting it.

[Chester Pearson]

While we understand this proposal had to "do something" to make it legal ambassador, there are many ways to do this. A clause requiring a firearm safety course, for example. As it stands now, it appears to us as if you are attempting to pass a piece of gun control legislation under the guise of a blocker.

We are not fooled and will not be supporting it.

I really could care less about gun control to be honest. If you want every Tom, Dick, and Harry in your nations to have a gun, then so be it. Our lives are not affected by that in any way shape or form. What I do care about! is some heavy right wing gun nut, trying to continually pass legislation, that says WE have to let everyone carry a gun. That is precisely why I avoided the gun control category in the first place, and took this to International Security, which is more my area of expertise....

As for your qualms about a registry.... It is so ambiguous, your registry could be anything......

[Herzil]

You know Extremists cant think logical so everything sounds to them as if they are being prosecuted and their rights to life taken from them.

BELIEVING that firearm ownership is and always should be a matter of national purview,

THUS SEEKING to end this silly debate once and for all,

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY HEREBY DECREES:

[list=1][*]The definition of the term "firearm" shall be left up to individual nations to define,


[*]The decision to allow citizens to carry firearms shall be left up to individual nations within the confines of current and future World Assembly legislation,

There isnt a single statement in the above quote, suggesting that this proposal is going to block, force or require nations who enjoy firearm parades to stop doing so like all the other 10's of firearm proposal that tried to force nations on: How to define firearm and who to sell, how to carry, when it can be used, by whome and when and where to strike with it.

[*]Requires that nations whom permit their citizens to carry firearms have a registry in place to ensure the accountability of such firearms readily accessible by law enforcement; Furthermore citizens that carry firearms shall be fully qualified to carry and use such firearms,

The only thing that this proposal actually asks is that you will keep a record of gun owners for the sake of the nation police so that in case of a crime done, you wouldnt have to go door to door searching for the owner.

It is really no different than minister of inerior listing the number of privet home owners in your nation.

You can also look at it in Economical eyes ....Consider that some of the nations opposing this legislation have a rather huge FireArm Industry, you can look at the need for record as a statistic profit graphs and keeping in touch with owners for future sells.

[Separatist Peoples]

It is really no different than minister of inerior listing the number of privet home owners in your nation.

You can also look at it in Economical eyes ....Consider that some of the nations opposing this legislation have a rather huge FireArm Industry, you can look at the need for record as a statistic profit graphs and keeping in touch with owners for future sells.

Your interpretation is pretty off-base, ambassador. This serves to block the WA from further legislating on firearms, not individual nations. It seeks to do as absolutely little as possible to individual nations, but keep nutjobs from forcing legislation through that, say, makes mandatory gun ownership or complete weapons bans in the WA. It isn't designed to do anything involving gun ownership or force a particular definition. I fail to see how that is a bad idea, in light of all the bad gun control proposals.

[Bears Armed]

Even though a hunting bill, for example, would have little international relevance, it would still be legal and fit into gun control.

As long as it didn't amend, contradict or significantly duplicate 'Sensible Limits on Hunting'.

[Herzil]

It is really no different than minister of inerior listing the number of privet home owners in your nation.

You can also look at it in Economical eyes ....Consider that some of the nations opposing this legislation have a rather huge FireArm Industry, you can look at the need for record as a statistic profit graphs and keeping in touch with owners for future sells.

Your interpretation is pretty off-base, ambassador. This serves to block the WA from further legislating on firearms, not individual nations. It seeks to do as absolutely little as possible to individual nations, but keep nutjobs from forcing legislation through that, say, makes mandatory gun ownership or complete weapons bans in the WA. It isn't designed to do anything involving gun ownership or force a particular definition. I fail to see how that is a bad idea, in light of all the bad gun control proposals.

Actually it wasnt off base - you just quoted the answer One might want or have to "sell" to the extremist regimes in order to gain their vote on the matter (let them see it from profit point of view)

Our office has supported this legislation from the start!

[Tea Party USA 2]

Gun registries must be optional and an amendment must be put in place that declares gun control laws are controlled by the nation not the WA.

[Belzia]

Gun registries must be optional and an amendment must be put in place that declares gun control laws are controlled by the nation not the WA.

there are no amendments in the WA, you seem to talk a lot about amendments and similar, but that's not how the WA works.

[Chester Pearson]

Gun registries must be optional and an amendment must be put in place that declares gun control laws are controlled by the nation not the WA.

Then the whole thing becomes optional, and illegal....

[Separatist Peoples]

Gun registries must be optional and an amendment must be put in place that declares gun control laws are controlled by the nation not the WA.

there are no amendments in the WA, you seem to talk a lot about amendments and similar, but that's not how the WA works.

For the record, it appears that the Tea Parisian ambassador is using "amendment" incorrectly, instead looking for an addition to the draft, as opposed to an amendment of a passed resolution.