NATION

PASSWORD

[Draft] Repeal: "Child Firearm Safety Act"

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7041
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

[Draft] Repeal: "Child Firearm Safety Act"

Postby Greater Cesnica » Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:28 am

General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act" (Category: Gun Control; Decision: Tighten) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Noting that the Child Firearm Safety Act does not define "firearm", potentially including:
  • Recreational soft air and paintball guns,
  • Signalling guns, and
  • Pellet guns for pest control,
Recognizing that this ambiguity can lead to the enforcement of this Act where it would not be necessary, thus posing a detriment to various industries and activities that rely on the use of projectile-firing devices,

Concerned with the language used in the Act which can only be interpreted in a subjective manner, such as:
  • The use of the term "proper" when referring to supervision, firearm use, and firearm safety in Articles 4, 5, and 6; as thresholds for what constitutes "proper" etiquette and standards can vary,
  • The use of the phrase "who may regularly encounter a child" in Article 6, especially since the use of the word "may" removes any notion of certainty from this provision; which could lead to its application where children are not present around firearms, and
  • The use of the term "reasonable manner" in Article 3, as this nebulously defined standard can vary,
Regarding Article 3's requirement to "eliminate" the risk of injury or death to a child as unrealistic, as there is no way to truly eliminate the risk posed by any object to a child,

Believing that such "one-size-fits-all" approaches to firearms regulations mandated by an international body are inherently flawed and open to abuse and subjective application,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act".
Last edited by Greater Cesnica on Wed Mar 17, 2021 11:19 am, edited 12 times in total.

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7041
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Greater Cesnica » Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:28 am

General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act" (Category: Gun Control; Decision: Tighten) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Acknowledging the sincere intentions behind the Child Firearm Safety Act,

Noting, however, that the Act fails to define the term "firearm", which could lead to the following items being considered a "firearm" for the purposes of this Act:
  • Airsoft guns used for recreational play,
  • Air guns used for pest and wildlife control,
  • Paintball guns used for recreational play, and
  • Flare guns used for signalling purposes,
Recognizing that Article 3 of the Act, which mandates that "any firearm kept or stored in the home of a child be secured in a reasonable manner to eliminate the risk of injury or death to the child", permits agents of a member state to enter a residence unannounced and potentially damage items within the residence to ensure compliance with this provision; a power that this Assembly regards as highly intrusive and open for abuse against disenfranchised populations and dissidents,

Concerned with the vague language used in the Act, such as:
  • The use of the term "proper" when referring to supervision, firearm use, and firearm safety in Articles 4, 5, and 6, which can only be interpreted in a subjective manner; as definitions and thresholds for what constitutes "proper" etiquette and standards may vary wildly from nation to nation, and
  • The use of the phrase "who may regularly encounter a child" in Article 6, which also can only be interpreted in a subjective manner; especially since the use of the word "may" removes any notion of certainty from this provision, as children "may" be encountered regularly while walking on a street, working at a restaurant that children "may" regularly visit, and taking public transportation that children "may" use regularly,
Cognizant that in nations experiencing strife such as a civil war, severe political instability, or a total breakdown of governmental order, it can be difficult or impossible to uniformly enforce the provisions mandated by this resolution; and that enforcement is thus likely be performed in a discriminatory manner,

Believing that such "one-size-fits-all" approaches to firearms regulations mandated by an international body are inherently flawed and open to abuse and subjective application,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act".
Draft created.
General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act" (Category: Gun Control; Decision: Tighten) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Acknowledging the sincere intentions behind the Child Firearm Safety Act,

Noting, however, that the Act fails to define the term "firearm", which could lead to the following items being considered a "firearm" for the purposes of this Act:
  • Airsoft guns used for recreational play,
  • Air guns used for pest and wildlife control,
  • Paintball guns used for recreational play, and
  • Flare guns used for signalling purposes,
Recognizing that Article 3 of the Act, which mandates that "any firearm kept or stored in the home of a child be secured in a reasonable manner to eliminate the risk of injury or death to the child", permits agents of a member state to enter a residence unannounced and potentially damage items within the residence to ensure compliance with this provision; a power that this Assembly regards as highly intrusive and open for abuse against disenfranchised populations and dissidents,

Further recognizing that the use of the the term "reasonable manner" in Article 3 is problematic, as this nebulously defined standard is open to subjective interpretation, and varies substantially from one member state to another,

Concerned with the vague language used in the Act which can only be interpreted in a subjective manner, such as:
  • The use of the term "proper" when referring to supervision, firearm use, and firearm safety in Articles 4, 5, and 6; as definitions and thresholds for what constitutes "proper" etiquette and standards vary substantially from nation to nation, and
  • The use of the phrase "who may regularly encounter a child" in Article 6, especially since the use of the word "may" removes any notion of certainty from this provision; as children "may" be encountered regularly while walking on a street, one can work at a restaurant that children "may" regularly visit, and one can take public transportation that children "may" use regularly,
Cognizant that in nations experiencing strife such as a civil war, severe political instability, or a total breakdown of governmental order, it can be difficult or impossible to uniformly enforce the provisions mandated by this resolution; and that enforcement is thus likely be performed in a discriminatory manner,

Believing that such "one-size-fits-all" approaches to firearms regulations mandated by an international body are inherently flawed and open to abuse and subjective application,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act".
Light edit to wording of "concerned" clause, added clause criticizing the use of the phrase "reasonable manner".
General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act" (Category: Gun Control; Decision: Tighten) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Acknowledging the sincere intentions behind the Child Firearm Safety Act,

Noting, however, that the Act does not define "firearm", potentially including:
  • Recreational soft air and paintball guns
  • Pellet guns for pest control, and
  • Signalling and flare guns,
Recognizing that Article 3 of the Act permits agents of a member state to enter a residence under dubious circumstances, ostensibly to ensure compliance with this provision; a power that this Assembly regards as highly intrusive and open for abuse against disenfranchised populations and dissidents,

Further recognizing that the use of the the term "reasonable manner" in Article 3 is problematic, as this nebulously defined standard varies from one member state to another,

Concerned with language used in the Act which can only be interpreted in a subjective manner, such as:
  • The use of the term "proper" when referring to supervision, firearm use, and firearm safety in Articles 4, 5, and 6; as thresholds for what constitutes "proper" etiquette and standards vary from nation to nation, and
  • The use of the phrase "who may regularly encounter a child" in Article 6, especially since the use of the word "may" removes any notion of certainty from this provision; which could lead to its application where children are not present around firearms,
Cognizant that in nations experiencing strife such as a civil war, severe political instability, or a total breakdown of governmental order, the uniform enforcement of the provisions mandated by this resolution cannot be guaranteed; with enforcement thus being likely to be performed in a discriminatory manner,

Believing that such "one-size-fits-all" approaches to firearms regulations mandated by an international body are inherently flawed and open to abuse and subjective application,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act".
Removed superfluous language, trimmed draft.
General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act" (Category: Gun Control; Decision: Tighten) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Acknowledging the sincere intentions behind the Child Firearm Safety Act,

Noting, however, that the Act does not define "firearm", potentially including:
  • Recreational soft air and paintball guns
  • Pellet guns for pest control, and
  • Signalling and flare guns,
Recognizing that Article 3 of the Act permits agents of a member state to enter a residence under dubious circumstances, ostensibly to ensure compliance with this provision; a power that this Assembly regards as highly intrusive and open for abuse against disenfranchised populations and dissidents,

Concerned with language used in the Act which can only be interpreted in a subjective manner, such as:
  • The use of the term "proper" when referring to supervision, firearm use, and firearm safety in Articles 4, 5, and 6; as thresholds for what constitutes "proper" etiquette and standards vary from nation to nation,
  • The use of the phrase "who may regularly encounter a child" in Article 6, especially since the use of the word "may" removes any notion of certainty from this provision; which could lead to its application where children are not present around firearms, and
  • The use of the the term "reasonable manner" in Article 3, as this nebulously defined standard varies from one member state to another,
Regarding Article 3's requirement to "eliminate" the risk of injury or death to a child as unrealistic, as there is no sure way to eliminate the risk posed by any appliance, tool, weapon, or other household fixture to a child,

Believing that such "one-size-fits-all" approaches to firearms regulations mandated by an international body are inherently flawed and open to abuse and subjective application,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act".
Nested clause, added point about untenable "eliminate" requirement.
General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act" (Category: Gun Control; Decision: Tighten) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Acknowledging the sincere intentions behind the Child Firearm Safety Act,

Noting, however, that the Act does not define "firearm", potentially including:
  • Recreational soft air and paintball guns,
  • Signalling and flare guns, and
  • Pellet guns for pest control,
Concerned with language used in the Act which can only be interpreted in a subjective manner, such as:
  • The use of the term "proper" when referring to supervision, firearm use, and firearm safety in Articles 4, 5, and 6; as thresholds for what constitutes "proper" etiquette and standards vary from nation to nation,
  • The use of the phrase "who may regularly encounter a child" in Article 6, especially since the use of the word "may" removes any notion of certainty from this provision; which could lead to its application where children are not present around firearms, and
  • The use of the term "reasonable manner" in Article 3, as this nebulously defined standard varies from one member state to another,
Regarding Article 3's requirement to "eliminate" the risk of injury or death to a child as unrealistic, as there is no way to truly eliminate the risk posed by any object to a child,

Believing that such "one-size-fits-all" approaches to firearms regulations mandated by an international body are inherently flawed and open to abuse and subjective application,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act".
Removed 'recognizing' clause.
General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act" (Category: Gun Control; Decision: Tighten) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Acknowledging the sincere intentions behind the Child Firearm Safety Act,

Noting, however, that the Act does not define "firearm", potentially including:
  • Recreational soft air and paintball guns,
  • Signalling and flare guns, and
  • Pellet guns for pest control,
Recognizing that this ambiguity can lead to the enforcement of this Act where it would not be necessary, thus posing a detriment to various industries and activities that rely on the use of projectile-firing devices,

Concerned with language used in the Act which can only be interpreted in a subjective manner, such as:
  • The use of the term "proper" when referring to supervision, firearm use, and firearm safety in Articles 4, 5, and 6; as thresholds for what constitutes "proper" etiquette and standards can vary,
  • The use of the phrase "who may regularly encounter a child" in Article 6, especially since the use of the word "may" removes any notion of certainty from this provision; which could lead to its application where children are not present around firearms, and
  • The use of the term "reasonable manner" in Article 3, as this nebulously defined standard can vary,
Regarding Article 3's requirement to "eliminate" the risk of injury or death to a child as unrealistic, as there is no way to truly eliminate the risk posed by any object to a child,

Believing that such "one-size-fits-all" approaches to firearms regulations mandated by an international body are inherently flawed and open to abuse and subjective application,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act".
"Recognizing" clause added back, this time to elaborate upon the negative effects of a lack of definition for "firearm".
General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act" (Category: Gun Control; Decision: Tighten) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Noting that the Child Firearm Safety Act does not define "firearm", potentially including:
  • Recreational soft air and paintball guns,
  • Signalling guns, and
  • Pellet guns for pest control,
Recognizing that this ambiguity can lead to the enforcement of this Act where it would not be necessary, thus posing a detriment to various industries and activities that rely on the use of projectile-firing devices,

Concerned with the language used in the Act which can only be interpreted in a subjective manner, such as:
  • The use of the term "proper" when referring to supervision, firearm use, and firearm safety in Articles 4, 5, and 6; as thresholds for what constitutes "proper" etiquette and standards can vary,
  • The use of the phrase "who may regularly encounter a child" in Article 6, especially since the use of the word "may" removes any notion of certainty from this provision; which could lead to its application where children are not present around firearms, and
  • The use of the term "reasonable manner" in Article 3, as this nebulously defined standard can vary,
Regarding Article 3's requirement to "eliminate" the risk of injury or death to a child as unrealistic, as there is no way to truly eliminate the risk posed by any object to a child,

Believing that such "one-size-fits-all" approaches to firearms regulations mandated by an international body are inherently flawed and open to abuse and subjective application,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act".
Trimmed a bit.
Last edited by Greater Cesnica on Wed Mar 17, 2021 11:19 am, edited 7 times in total.


User avatar
Jedinsto
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 482
Founded: Nov 12, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Jedinsto » Sun Feb 21, 2021 9:36 am

Greater Cesnica wrote:
General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act" (Category: Gun Control; Decision: Tighten) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

Acknowledging the sincere intentions behind the Child Firearm Safety Act,

Noting, however, that the Act fails to define the term "firearm", which could lead to the following items being considered a "firearm" for the purposes of this Act:
  • Airsoft guns used for recreational play,
  • Air guns used for pest and wildlife control,
  • Paintball guns used for recreational play, and
  • Flare guns used for signalling purposes,
Recognizing that Article 3 of the Act, which mandates that "any firearm kept or stored in the home of a child be secured in a reasonable manner to eliminate the risk of injury or death to the child", permits agents of a member state to enter a residence unannounced and potentially damage items within the residence to ensure compliance with this provision; a power that this Assembly regards as highly intrusive and open for abuse against disenfranchised populations and dissidents,

Further recognizing that the use of the the term "reasonable manner" in Article 3 is problematic, as this nebulously defined standard is open to subjective interpretation, and varies substantially from one member state to another,

Concerned with the vague language used in the Act which can only be interpreted in a subjective manner, such as:
  • The use of the term "proper" when referring to supervision, firearm use, and firearm safety in Articles 4, 5, and 6; as definitions and thresholds for what constitutes "proper" etiquette and standards vary substantially from nation to nation, and
  • The use of the phrase "who may regularly encounter a child" in Article 6, especially since the use of the word "may" removes any notion of certainty from this provision; as children "may" be encountered regularly while walking on a street, one can work at a restaurant that children "may" regularly visit, and one can take public transportation that children "may" use regularly,
Cognizant that in nations experiencing strife such as a civil war, severe political instability, or a total breakdown of governmental order, it can be difficult or impossible to uniformly enforce the provisions mandated by this resolution; and that enforcement is thus likely be performed in a discriminatory manner,

Believing that such "one-size-fits-all" approaches to firearms regulations mandated by an international body are inherently flawed and open to abuse and subjective application,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act".

I support this repeal, definitions this bad are extremely problematic. Do you intend on writing a replacement?
My drafts
James DuBois
Capitalism, centrism, environment, civil rights
Communism, socialism, nukes, fascism, Trump

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7041
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Greater Cesnica » Sun Feb 21, 2021 9:37 am

Jedinsto wrote:Do you intend on writing a replacement?

No, as per the last line in my repeal:
Believing that such "one-size-fits-all" approaches to firearms regulations mandated by an international body are inherently flawed and open to abuse and subjective application,


User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7041
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Greater Cesnica » Sun Feb 21, 2021 2:06 pm

More edits done. Nested critique of "reasonable manner" under the 'concerned' clause, removed 'cognizant' clause, added clause attacking requirement to "eliminate" risk posed to children by firearms.

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7041
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Greater Cesnica » Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:07 pm

"Recognizing" clause added back with new content, this time elaborating upon why a lack of definition for "firearm" is a bad thing.

User avatar
CoraSpia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11282
Founded: Mar 01, 2014
Anarchy

Postby CoraSpia » Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:20 pm

Full support, and hopefully this won't be replaced.
GVH has a puppet. He uses it to post in regions and on the forums. The identity of this puppet will forever remain a mystery.

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7041
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Greater Cesnica » Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:23 pm

CoraSpia wrote:Full support, and hopefully this won't be replaced.

Certainly won't by me. I will oppose any attempt at a replacement.

User avatar
Astrobolt
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 110
Founded: Jul 30, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Astrobolt » Tue Feb 23, 2021 5:57 pm

"Opposed without a replacement. There is a legitimate interest in ensuring that untrained children do not have access to lethal firearms."
He/Him
Ambassador to the WA: Mr. Reede Tappe
In the WA IC, despite not being in it OOC.


Note: All views expressed are solely my own, and don't represent any region, organization or group unless stated otherwise.

For a detailed list of positions, and other things of note, read the dispatch below. https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1428456

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 15984
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:01 pm

Astrobolt wrote:"Opposed without a replacement. There is a legitimate interest in ensuring that untrained children do not have access to lethal firearms."

"Then enact such regulations in your nation."

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Thermodolia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 65092
Founded: Oct 07, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Thermodolia » Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:40 am

Full support.
Male, Titoist cultural nationalist, lives somewhere in AZ, give me any good Irish, Canadian, or Scottish whiskey and I will be your friend for life. I'm GAY! US Military Veteran
I'm agent #69 in the Gaystapo!
>The Sons of Adam: I'd crown myself monarch... cuz why not?
>>Dumb Ideologies: Why not turn yourself into a penguin and build an igloo at the centre of the Earth?
>Xovland: I keep getting ads for printer ink. Sometimes, when you get that feeling down there, you have to look at some steamy printer pictures.
Click for Da Funies
Click Here for RP Info Embassy Program
Ambassadors to the WA: Senior Eve Šanœ, Junior Jon Æthr

RIP Dya


User avatar
Jedinsto
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 482
Founded: Nov 12, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Jedinsto » Thu Feb 25, 2021 7:04 pm

Greater Cesnica wrote:Any other feedback?

"None at this time, Ambassador. Good luck!"
My drafts
James DuBois
Capitalism, centrism, environment, civil rights
Communism, socialism, nukes, fascism, Trump

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7041
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Greater Cesnica » Thu Feb 25, 2021 7:07 pm

Jedinsto wrote:
Greater Cesnica wrote:Any other feedback?

"None at this time, Ambassador. Good luck!"

"Appreciate it!"


User avatar
Graintfjall
Diplomat
 
Posts: 680
Founded: Jun 30, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Graintfjall » Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:08 am

OOC: You don't seem to write in-character, which is unfortunate as this is an in-character game.

It's a bad resolution but this is a very weak repeal argument. You're just quibbling a bunch of definitions and arguing nations might interpret them in a harmful way.
Solo: IBC30, WCoH42
Co-host: CR36, BoF74
Champions: BoF73
Runners-up: DBC49, EC10
The White Winter Queendom of Græntfjall
GS SuperSports+

User avatar
Greater Cesnica
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7041
Founded: Mar 30, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Greater Cesnica » Thu Mar 11, 2021 7:14 am

Graintfjall wrote:OOC: You don't seem to write in-character, which is unfortunate as this is an in-character game.

It's a bad resolution but this is a very weak repeal argument. You're just quibbling a bunch of definitions and arguing nations might interpret them in a harmful way.

OOC: I have done both IC and OOC here. As for the draft itself- GAR #235 uses vague and flawed language to an extent that its provisions can very easily be interpreted in ways that the author didn't intend.


User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2879
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Wed Mar 17, 2021 11:39 am

"Opposed.

"This is all "it's not defined" with the exception of one clause which misinterprets the target.

"Also considering that GAR#399 passed after this, there can be no replacement."

OOC:
My 1/6th GenSec.

Regarding Article 3's requirement to "eliminate" the risk of injury or death to a child as unrealistic, as there is no way to truly eliminate the risk posed by any object to a child,


Not true. The requirement is qualified by the word reasonable.

The rest is "it's not defined" which per modly precedent is included in the NatSov only rule. Prolly what you have here is justified sufficiently to be ok legality wise, eg in the "recognizing" clause, but it seems rather weak. You need more substantial arguments here IMO.
Last edited by Bananaistan on Wed Mar 17, 2021 11:45 am, edited 3 times in total.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.
Ideological Bulwark #281

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 15984
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Wed Mar 17, 2021 12:17 pm

Bananaistan wrote:"Opposed.

"This is all "it's not defined" with the exception of one clause which misinterprets the target.

"Also considering that GAR#399 passed after this, there can be no replacement."

"That is rather the idea, ambassador! Nations can certainly regulate this matter best in accordance with their social and practical needs."

His Worshipfulness Lord GA Secretariat, Authority on All Existence, Arbiter of Right, Toxic Globalist Dog, Dark Psychic Vampire, and Chief Populist Elitist!
Separatist Peoples should RESIGN!

User avatar
Illu-chi
Attaché
 
Posts: 72
Founded: Feb 01, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Illu-chi » Wed Mar 17, 2021 6:43 pm

Full support. Sadly however another nation will probably replace it quickly with something just as garbage as the proposal you are to repeal.

User avatar
COOPDAWGG
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Mar 25, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby COOPDAWGG » Tue Apr 06, 2021 12:35 pm

COOPDAWG supports this act. Keep kids safe!

User avatar
Wayneactia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1714
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wayneactia » Tue Apr 06, 2021 8:06 pm

Greater Cesnica wrote:
Graintfjall wrote:OOC: You don't seem to write in-character, which is unfortunate as this is an in-character game.

It's a bad resolution but this is a very weak repeal argument. You're just quibbling a bunch of definitions and arguing nations might interpret them in a harmful way.

OOC: I have done both IC and OOC here. As for the draft itself- GAR #235 uses vague and flawed language to an extent that its provisions can very easily be interpreted in ways that the author didn't intend.

How exactly would you know how Cowardly Pacificts intended provisions to be interpreted?

Also, how is this not legislating within a repeal:
Noting that the Child Firearm Safety Act does not define "firearm", potentially including:
Recreational soft air and paintball guns,
Signaling guns, and
Pellet guns for pest control,

Seems to me like the WA is now defining what a firearm is, within a repeal.

Edit:

Further to that, how is this not illegal based upon the fact it is nothing more than "this isn't defined, that isn't defined......" If this repeal goes through with these clauses intact, does that mean we can now make repeal arguments based solely upon nation sovereignty concerns, because that is exactly what this here repeal boils down to.
Last edited by Wayneactia on Tue Apr 06, 2021 8:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bhang Bhang Duc, Haprus Nanari, Vikanias

Advertisement

Remove ads