[PASSED] Child Firearm Safety Act

[Cowardly Pacifists]

I know the common practice is for authors to step away from the debate once their proposal is at vote.

Really? Since when? I know I've always been around to defend my resolutions while they're at vote, and I can't think of anyone who didn't do likewise.

Maybe it's just a personal practice (or an aspirational personal practice).

In any case, I'm about to fail in that aspiration.

It is fortunate that nations that do not have a threshold of majority will not be affected by this resolution, but I agree with my faerie colleague. If it is necessary for us to discriminate, then we should discriminate solely on the basis of actual competence. We should not require nations that have an age of majority to add yet another age-based restriction to their statutes.

I've adopted the Sanctarian compromise of referring to "threshold" rather than "age" of majority. This proposal does not make anyone discriminate based on age. If your nation's threshold between child and adult is one of "competence" then so be it. Other than a reference to "youth" in the preamble, the proposal's actual provisions are age neutral.

That said, an undeniable majority of nations do recognize that children, because of their tender years, deserve special treatment and protections. Frankly, I'm annoyed by how the "anti-ageist" nations are reacting to the provisions of this proposal. If there's nothing I can do to both promote child welfare and appease you folks then in the future I will stop trying.

James Blonde enters the chamber and begins to speak. "Ladies and Gentlemen," he begins. "I rise strongly oppose the resolution before us, a wolf covered in sheep's clothing; a golden fleece none the less, but still a wolf at the core. In spite of the soft words and gentle language, the purpose of this resolution is clear; to tighten gun control."

I appreciate the compliment.

In short; this resolution doesn't do a damn thing. The so called 'exception' basically overshadows the rule...

Only clause number three makes any sense and that is so much common sense that one wonders why one needs an international law on safe storage of weapons in the first place. And I would like to point to an omission in the resolution; there is nothing to require that children be taught a healthy fear of guns. This allows the combination of reasonable safety and modicum restraint from normally curious children without the need for a resolution whose effect is to merely tighten gun control.

If I may summarize Mr. Blonde's points:

(1) The Act doesn't do anything
(2) Except that one thing, which is so good that everyone already does it (except see below)
(3) And really, the Act should have required that we scare children!!

As my first official act as Representative of the Federation of Suinae, I strongly object to this proposal.

What this decree does is impose international will onto our domestic affairs. As a Capitalistic society, Suinae believes strongly in Natural Selection.

The children of those dumb enough to leave their weapons in areas accessible by children, are likely going to be dumb themselves. By allowing them to kill themselves, we are advancing the cause of Natural Selection.

How dare you get in the way of our Nation's progress!

Even if Mr. Blonde is right and this Act only does one thing, that one thing is going to do some good for the children of Suinae.

In relation to this resolution, what is the definition of a "firearm"? I also would like to know, will this resolution make it unlawful to provide a "firearm" to a child who is uneducated in firearms use and safety for the purposes of self-defense in an emergency situation such as a home invasion, or attempted assault/murder?

This is a "Gun Control" proposal, so I'm sure nations can figure out what's going on without requiring me to define every last term in the proposal. I wasn't going to define "child" either, except that this assembly has a somewhat dubious history with that term.

You are free to use a dictionary to discover the good faith definition of "firearm." And I'm willing to go on record that this proposal would prohibit giving an untrained child a gun, even in a "home invasion, or attempted assault/murder." I'm afraid folks will have to think up better emergency plans than giving their toddler a gun and instructing them to shoot the bad guy.

Prince Fias looked at the vote count intently. When his eyes alighted upon the number of votes for the proposal, he winced. He shook his head in disgust and gripped the handle of his sword. After a few seconds, he sighed deeply, relaxing his hands. "Although I am sad to see this proposal doing so well, I admit that its current success is proof of the great diplomatic ability of the Cowardly Pacifists." Fias rubbed his temples to rid himself of his throbbing headache, and continued, "I congratulate you on the very likely passage of this bill. Hopefully we can work together and agree on your next successful WA endeavor."

Fias sat down and began writing laws for his nation that would bring it into compliance with this act.

Indeed. I appreciate your contribution to the debate. It was quite lively as I recall.

Best Regards,

[Diogris]

The esteemed representative from Diogris is here to... applaud... this Proposal.

I have my reasons! Oh and I threaten to leave the WA and all that.

[Weed]

I've chosen to abstain. I can see nothing fundamentally wrong with this policy, but it is also nothing I am passionately or even moderately support. [OOC: I initially voted against, because I said out loud to another friend that I've gotten to play NS that I was going to vote against the at least one, likely more, gun control resolutions that came up in the next month on the day of the Connecticut school shooting. But I suppose this really isn't that related, so I've relaxed my initial irritation. Plus I see now this was in the works prior to that even happening. So, my bad, I suppose. ]

---

Clinton Tew

WA Ambassador from Weed

[Eireann Fae]

[OOC: I initially voted against, because I said out loud to another friend that I've gotten to play NS that I was going to vote against the at least one, likely more, gun control resolutions that came up in the next month on the day of the Connecticut school shooting. But I suppose this really isn't that related, so I've relaxed my initial irritation. :P Plus I see now this was in the works prior to that even happening. So, my bad, I suppose.

(OOC: I know what you mean about knee-jerk proposals. They annoy me to no end, in NS and IRL. I'm opposed to this legislation on entirely different grounds, though, so my Against vote stands :-)

[Edorbe]

Responsible firearm ownership is a reasonable and prudent proposition. However this legislation has obvious propensity for abuse that renders it therefore questionably enforceable. There appear to be only three conditions to enforcement: 1) a child is witnessed shooting somewhere unsupervised, 2.) investigation after the fact of an accidental shooting, and 3.) violation of the rights of a sovereign citizen by invading their home in search of firearms to verify locking devices are in place. The goals of this act are prudent and they are the free decisions of private citizens, not the invasive authority of any government. Relinquishing any amount of civil liberty is always a slippery slope. VOTE AGAINST.

[Russian Ossetia]

The passing of this act is a load of bull, prohibition of anything that has a consumer base has never worked, require firearm safety classes before a child can use a firearm and then only under supervision of a trained adult/parent

[United Federation of Canada]

Permanent Delegation of the United Federation of Canada to the World Assembly

The Right Honourable Prime Minister Jack Layston, has informed our delegation to vote YES on this proposal. This proposal will do much to reduce firearm related accidents and many lives will be saved.

Our vote has been cast accordingly.

[The Princehood of Lithonia]

Indeed. I appreciate your contribution to the debate. It was quite lively as I recall.

Best Regards,

Fias looked up from his paperwork and grinned. He really did not think it was all that "lively" (OOC: His people are used to be rather harsh in their debate), but rather seemed quite dull. Still, he thought it was better than having it called "worthless" or "garbage".

"Well, I would have preferred it to have been deadly, not lively. However, your debating was apparently greater than mine in this instance, and I will concede that."

[Rodrania]

Banning guns? WHAT? Irresponsible dads isn't is the fault of a Nation. It's a parent's responsibility to maintain a gun away from kids. This will compromise our security, We will not accept this. As i said before: It's the responsibility of a parent to maintain guns away from children.

[The Princehood of Lithonia]

Fias glanced up at the ambassador from Rodrania, giving him a confused look. "You do understand that you cannot actually refuse to follow the mandates of the World Assembly. Moreover, why get upset over something that can't be stopped? It would be far better to start working on something that will promote your political ideas than to sit here and blather (using incorrect english by the way) about how you hate this proposal and won't obey it."

The incessant scratching of his quill continued on.

[Ciricun]

I am uncomfortable with the definition of child. A great many individuals can fall under the threshold of the majority. Depending on the majority in question. I would perfer a clear definition of child under this act.

[Retired WerePenguins]

If I may summarize Mr. Blonde's points:

(1) The Act doesn't do anything
(2) Except that one thing, which is so good that everyone already does it (except see below)
(3) And really, the Act should have required that we scare children!!

I'm afraid Mr. Blonde has gone to the Stranger's Bar. As a member of his staff, I am more than willing to discuss this matter with you.

As for point one, that is correct.
As for point two, his statement was that it was so common sense that it seems an overkill to have a WA resolution where this is the only really functioning clause.
Instilling a proper respect for a dangerous thing does not require scare tactics. I'm sure that you don't teach humans not to play with matches by scaring them. Likewise I would never teach children not to walk on thin ice by scaring them to death.

[Rickgrad]

Finally a sensible act from the World Assembly the Empire of Rickgrad can get behind.
We vote YES

[Oneracon]

Permanent Mission of the Kingdom of Oneracon to the World Assembly

The Kingdom of Oneracon is more than pleased to vote for this resolution. There will be no issue of compliance with domestic law, as possession of firearms by any civilian is already prohibited under the Private Weapon Restriction Act.

We wish the honourable ambassador from Cowardly Pacifists the best of luck with the passage of this proposal.

Phillip Webber
Ambassador of the Kingdom of Oneracon to the World Assembly
Regional Delegate for Caballete Equus

[Fotonia]

What's a firearm?

In some places, a BB gun qualifies; in others, it does not. Could a crossbow --a potentially lethal projectile weapon-- be considered a firearm?

Although I agree with the spirit of this proposal, I am somewhat leery of its implications. A central element of the resolution lacks an operational definition, opening the door for some Member Nations to develop their own interpretations, thereby circumventing the collective intent of the WA. Barring previously established laws, it's conceivable that a labor-starved Nation may, through convoluted logic, declare a book to be a firearm:

Book = Writing
Pen :: Writing
Book = Pen
Pen > Sword
Firearm > Sword
Pen :: Firearm
Book :: Firearm

...and suddenly fill factories with former schoolkids.

An extreme example, yes. Though not probable, it is possible for this scenario to evolve.

Just sayin'.

[Destroidia]

Major flaw in this is preventing the child from having access to the firearm, though the idea makes sense, it encompasses a loophole. How does one learn to properly use a firearm if they are not allowed to ever use one? If we wait till the age of majority then the user does not require supervision over their first set of uses. Punish the parents, yes, prevent the learning no.

[Eireann Fae]

"Thass what we've said all along!" exclaims Rowan, clearly intoxicated, as her speech is slurred (and she's using contractions). "This shoulda been based on COMPETENCY, not AGE! Unforchunly, the fools outnumber you and I more'n two to one. Jimmy!" she calls, apparently forgetting that the waiter from the Stranger's Bar doesn't actually hang out in the Assembly Chamber. "Another Vespa!"

[Cameroi]

does not this act deprive "children" as so defined therein, the "right" to arm themselves in defense against their parents?

[Bvermin]

6. MANDATES that an individual who lives in the same home as a child, or who may regularly encounter a child, must demonstrate knowledge of proper firearm use and safety before acquiring a firearm; especially, knowledge of how to reduce the risk posed by a firearm to the health and safety of children;

I can agree with all other aspects of this, except for number 6. It is too ambiguous.

"individual who lives in the same home as a child" should be "individual who stores firearms in the same home in which any child without knowledge of proper firearm use and safety resides"

You can argue that every person regularly encounters a child. It would make more sense to say "or who may regularly encounter any child without knowledge of proper firearm use and safety in the location where firearms are stored/secured"

[Oneracon]

Major flaw in this is preventing the child from having access to the firearm, though the idea makes sense, it encompasses a loophole. How does one learn to properly use a firearm if they are not allowed to ever use one? If we wait till the age of majority then the user does not require supervision over their first set of uses. Punish the parents, yes, prevent the learning no.

"5. CLARIFIES that notwithstanding the above provisions, it is not unlawful under this Act to provide a firearm to a child under proper supervision for the purposes of educating the child in firearm safety and proper use;"

[Quelesh]

It is fortunate that nations that do not have a threshold of majority will not be affected by this resolution, but I agree with my faerie colleague. If it is necessary for us to discriminate, then we should discriminate solely on the basis of actual competence. We should not require nations that have an age of majority to add yet another age-based restriction to their statutes.

I've adopted the Sanctarian compromise of referring to "threshold" rather than "age" of majority. This proposal does not make anyone discriminate based on age. If your nation's threshold between child and adult is one of "competence" then so be it. Other than a reference to "youth" in the preamble, the proposal's actual provisions are age neutral.

That said, an undeniable majority of nations do recognize that children, because of their tender years, deserve special treatment and protections. Frankly, I'm annoyed by how the "anti-ageist" nations are reacting to the provisions of this proposal. If there's nothing I can do to both promote child welfare and appease you folks then in the future I will stop trying.

There is something that you could do (or rather could have done in this case, as it's too late to change this resolution). The fundamental idea here - keeping guns out of the hands of people who are incompetent to safely wield them - has merit, and I don't object to it. I merely object to discriminating against children in doing so.

This resolution could have, and should have, focused on the incompetent, regardless of whether or not they're children, instead of on children, regardless of whether or not they're incompetent. Guns and Mental Capacity would have been a good starting point, and I think you would have been able to improve upon that resolution significantly; you're a very talented author.

Of course, this proposal would have had to be renamed, and it might have lost some support from the "for the children" crowd, but it would have been in my opinion a much better piece of work that accomplishes its legitimate aim - keeping guns away from the incompetent - without discriminating in the process. As it stands, this resolution is both underinclusive and overinclusive: underinclusive because it does nothing to keep guns away from incompetent adults and overinclusive because it keeps guns away from competent children.

And anyway, we both know that most nations that have a "threshold" of majority actually do discriminate on the basis of age, and we should not be encouraging this at all, though I do recognize that using "threshold" in the resolution is better than explicitly mentioning age.

"Thass what we've said all along!" exclaims Rowan, clearly intoxicated, as her speech is slurred (and she's using contractions). "This shoulda been based on COMPETENCY, not AGE! Unforchunly, the fools outnumber you and I more'n two to one. Jimmy!" she calls, apparently forgetting that the waiter from the Stranger's Bar doesn't actually hang out in the Assembly Chamber. "Another Vespa!"

There's always next time, Ms. Rowan, though I'm skeptical about the odds of this body ever fully championing the rights of youth. During my career as a diplomat I have learned, much to my chagrin, that ageist attitudes are very deeply ingrained in some cultures. It takes a lot of work, and a lot of time, to change the minds of those who have simply never had to think about these issues before.

does not this act deprive "children" as so defined therein, the "right" to arm themselves in defense against their parents?

Especially in nations in which parents have almost complete control over their offspring's lives, and are even allowed to legally assault their offspring! Surely "minors," in nations with such a legal status, should have the right to defend themselves against the predations of their guardians. A wise thinker once said: "No one is more truly helpless than he who can neither choose nor change nor escape his protectors."

Leonard Roku
Quelesian Minister of Foreign Affairs

[The Two Jerseys]

Major flaw in this is preventing the child from having access to the firearm, though the idea makes sense, it encompasses a loophole. How does one learn to properly use a firearm if they are not allowed to ever use one? If we wait till the age of majority then the user does not require supervision over their first set of uses. Punish the parents, yes, prevent the learning no.

"5. CLARIFIES that notwithstanding the above provisions, it is not unlawful under this Act to provide a firearm to a child under proper supervision for the purposes of educating the child in firearm safety and proper use;"

Yes, there is a loophole.

First off, let's dumb down the language a bit so we can get a better understanding of what it says...

From Wiktionary, the definition of "notwithstanding": "nevertheless, in spite of, despite".

So, let's examine the resolution, but replace "notwithstanding" with a synonym:

2. DECLARES that it is unlawful for an individual to intentionally provide a firearm to a child, or to negligently allow a child to access a firearm;

4. CLARIFIES that notwithstanding despite the above provisions, it is not unlawful under this Act to provide a firearm to a child (or allow a child to access a firearm) if that child has received an education in firearm safety and proper use, and has demonstrated knowledge thereof; Actually, it is unlawful. You explicitly said that "it is unlawful for an individual to intentionally provide a firearm to a child". If you wish to allow children to handle weapons for training purposes, you explicitly "declare" that they are allowed to do so or clearly state that it's an "exception" to the above provision. You can't "clarify" something written in plain English.

5. CLARIFIES that notwithstanding despite the above provisions, it is not unlawful under this Act to provide a firearm to a child under proper supervision for the purposes of educating the child in firearm safety and proper use; Again: "Despite the fact we just said it's illegal to give a kid a gun, it's legal to give a kid a gun even though we said it's illegal and nothing in this resolution explicitly says otherwise because we said 'clarifies' instead of 'declares' or some form of the verb 'except'."

So until Sections 4 and 5 get a proper enacting clause, they mean nothing.

[South Maountain Heaven]

While the need of passing such an act is absolutely legitimate, the draft act needs a few substantial improvements. In particular, the current wording of the provisions of paragrapghs 4 and 5 risk to undermine the draft act's objective of ensuring child safety in relation to [mis]use of firearms.

These provisions should be either deleted or majorly overhualed. Otherwise, the benefits from the adoption of this draft act would be outweighed by its disadvantages.

In general, childeren should not be allowed any access to firearms safe for several exemptions. Such approach would prevent from unwanted massacres involving children.

In view of the above, I should propose the following drafting suggestions:

'' [...]

4. CLARIFIES that notwithstanding the provisions of this Act, it is not unlawful to provide a firearm to a child (or allow a child to access a firearm)for selfdefence purposes in the case of immediate and direct threat to the life or health of that child or their next of kin where that child has received an education in firearm safety and proper use, and has demonstrated knowledge thereof;

5. CLARIFIES that notwithstanding the above provisions, it is not unlawful under this Act to provide a firearm to a child under proper supervisionunder the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 4 or for the purposes of educating the child in firearm safety and proper use. In the latter scenario, the used firearms may not be loaded and shall be returned to the certified training institution providing the relevant education following complition of the education session;

[new] 6a. COMMITS all World Assembly Member States to provide for a minimum penalty of 3 years imprisonment for any individual that has breached the requirements of this Act. World Assembly Member States may provide for stricter penalty regime under their national law."

[South Maountain Heaven]

Seriously? Do the drafters of this resolution really think it would improve child firearm safety? I do not think so.

A careful reading of the enacting terms of the resolution shows that it actually creates a legal basis for the use of firearms by children. This is absolutely ridiculous!!! Why in the world would law allow for training of children on how to use firearms? What is the need for such a training at all? Why a child would have to be able to use a firearm???

The more we read this draft resolution, the more we are convinced that it should be discarded.

[Rattlestan]

As a nation with the strictest of laws governing the ownership/usage of firearms we applaud the sentiment behind this bill. However, the clause defining the safe use of guns by children is unnaceptable; our nation firmly believes there are no circumstances in which children handling firearms is a positive measure. Therefore, we are duty bound to oppose this legislation.