[Closed] Repeal GAR #235, "Child Firearm Safety Act"

[Morover]

Draft 1:

Repeal "Child Firearm Safety Act"

General Assembly Resolution #235 "Child Firearm Safety Act" - https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1



The World Assembly,

Acknowledging that General Assembly Resolution #235 was created in order to prevent the harm of children.

Aware that General Assembly Resolution #235 does allow properly educated children to use a firearm.

Aware of other safety procedures put in place that protect children from firearms.

Uncertain of the level of education the General Assembly Resolution #235 intended to put into place.

Concerned that restricting the use of children using firearms may have unintended consequences.

Also Concerned that children may be defenseless in the case of intrusion.

Acknowledging that some nations are unable to provide sufficient education courses to citizens, but still encourage the use of general firearms.

Believing that legislation should not be open to interpretation.

Understanding that it is near-impossible for a nation to adequately enforce this law, due to the vague nature of General Assembly Resolution #235.

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #235

This is my first GA proposal, so I'm open to suggestions. I do have a few questions while I'm here:
Is it considered unprofessional to use the same introductory words a few times in a resolution (e.g. "acknowledging", "concerned")?
Is this a bit short, or is it just me?
Should I expand on anything, and if so, what should I expand on?


EDIT: Submitted https://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vi ... 1550514889

[Borovan3]

Hey there,

I have to say that the way I interpret it, minors can use firearms if they have permission and have prerequisite knowledge. They're probably can be taught by the relative or instructor , cost should not be a significant problem. The problem comes if children who don't know can end up with mistakes or are not mature enough to handle it. This may be less problematic for ones who are facing harsh conditions but we end up have to make a choice between safety from accidents which occur in cities and danger in isolated rural areas or less developed nations.

Also we say the world assembly, not to the world assembly. We're not addressing the world assembly, even if you brought this draft to us because this resolution will be presented to the world so when they look at it, it will be presented from our pov

Using the same words can be strengthened by power verbs. The length is fine but looks little short but if a repeal makes its case effective it's good.

[Morover]

Hey there,

I have to say that the way I interpret it, minors can use firearms if they have permission and have prerequisite knowledge. They're probably can be taught by the relative or instructor , cost should not be a significant problem. The problem comes if children who don't know can end up with mistakes or are not mature enough to handle it. This may be less problematic for ones who are facing harsh conditions but we end up have to make a choice between safety from accidents which occur in cities and danger in isolated rural areas or less developed nations.

Also we say the world assembly, not to the world assembly. We're not addressing the world assembly, even if you brought this draft to us because this resolution will be presented to the world so when they look at it, it will be presented from our pov

Hey, thanks for the response. According to the resolution, if a "child has received an education in firearm safety and proper use, and has demonstrated knowledge thereof," then they are permitted to use a firearm. This implies that they must have had an official education on firearms, which some nations may not be able to afford. I feel that the problems that this issue may cause outweighs the issues that it solves.

Also, thanks for letting me know about the introduction thing. I'll fix that right away. Thanks again.

[Supreme Swiss]

I think this is a good idea but cost does seem like a problem.

[Kenmoria]

“I disagree with your final clause of reasoning, in that the target resolution is quite vague as to what level of education in a child is allowed for them to use a firearm, so the mandate should be quite easy to fulfill. Also, your concerned clause doesn’t make much sense to me. What economic effect would there be if children chant have firearms?”

(OOC: On another note, welcome to the General Assembly!)

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

Hey, thanks for the response. According to the resolution, if a "child has received an education in firearm safety and proper use, and has demonstrated knowledge thereof," then they are permitted to use a firearm. This implies that they must have had an official education on firearms, which some nations may not be able to afford. I feel that the problems that this issue may cause outweighs the issues that it solves.

Also, thanks for letting me know about the introduction thing. I'll fix that right away. Thanks again.

OOC:
Welcome to Statutory Interpretation: English Common Law style as employed by Nation States. I am by no means an expert at it (wrong countries), but if I am not horribly off base, the target resolution contains no definition of what constitutes "education" or "demonstration thereof" leaving the member states free to basically come up with anything they want that is not absurd on its face. Uncle Cletus in the garden with beer bottles as "education" and "can hit a target at a range without harming anyone" as "demonstration thereof" are technically permissible, if abysmally stupid ways of complying with the proposal.

IC: We would consider supporting a repeal if a replacement were made that more clearly controlled the required contents of education and verification. We strongly support the right of all people to be armed for their defense, but we see no reason that is to be incompatible with a requirement to be competent in the use of said arms with the appropriate discernment about their use.

[Wallenburg]

You're probably fighting an uphill battle arguing that toddlers with no understanding of how to safely use and handle guns should be allowed to go around firing handguns whenever and wherever they want.

[Morover]

I think this is a good idea but cost does seem like a problem.

This does seem to be the main issue that many have with this resolution. Would you (and, anyone else who is concerned about the cost aspect of the proposal) support it if I took out the clause about the cost of education?

“I disagree with your final clause of reasoning, in that the target resolution is quite vague as to what level of education in a child is allowed for them to use a firearm, so the mandate should be quite easy to fulfill. Also, your concerned clause doesn’t make much sense to me. What economic effect would there be if children chant have firearms?”

(OOC: On another note, welcome to the General Assembly!)

Are you referring to the final clause of mine being that it is near-impossible to enforce the resolution or the education requirements that Resolution #235 says must be in place? If the former, then I'm not entirely sure how that's relevant, but feel free to explain. If the latter, then I must say that, if the proposal does intend for children to get a proper education in order to use a gun, it would make sense for it to be a formal education, as it is otherwise impossible to determine whether or not a "home education," for lack of a better word, would be a proper education in the eyes of the World Assembly.

As for the concerned clause, I initially had it without the "due to the economic limitations of a nation," but later changed it to include that portion of the text because I felt that the original wording was a bit to vague, and I didn't know how to word it, even though I feel that it is essential to keep in, though I may be mistaken in that regard.

(OOC: Thanks!)

Hey, thanks for the response. According to the resolution, if a "child has received an education in firearm safety and proper use, and has demonstrated knowledge thereof," then they are permitted to use a firearm. This implies that they must have had an official education on firearms, which some nations may not be able to afford. I feel that the problems that this issue may cause outweighs the issues that it solves.

Also, thanks for letting me know about the introduction thing. I'll fix that right away. Thanks again.

OOC:
Welcome to Statutory Interpretation: English Common Law style as employed by Nation States. I am by no means an expert at it (wrong countries), but if I am not horribly off base, the target resolution contains no definition of what constitutes "education" or "demonstration thereof" leaving the member states free to basically come up with anything they want that is not absurd on its face. Uncle Cletus in the garden with beer bottles as "education" and "can hit a target at a range without harming anyone" as "demonstration thereof" are technically permissible, if abysmally stupid ways of complying with the proposal.

IC: We would consider supporting a repeal if a replacement were made that more clearly controlled the required contents of education and verification. We strongly support the right of all people to be armed for their defense, but we see no reason that is to be incompatible with a requirement to be competent in the use of said arms with the appropriate discernment about their use.

(OOC: I'll answer your OOC commentary IC, just for simplicity's sake.)
IC:
That is one of my issues Resolution #235, because it is so vague in regards to what a formal education is. As I mentioned above, I don't see a problem with having restrictions on firearms for children, but I do not feel that Resolution #235 is the way to go about it.

If you'll note in the target resolution, it states that "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." While this is a good idea, in essence, it also makes it very difficult to enforce the act, as noted in my final clause. It is not out of the question for a nation to be claiming that any use of a weapon is technically for the purposes of education, as they feel experience is the best education.

I have no problems with rewriting the resolution in order to better clarify what qualifies an education, should the need for one arise and if the support for one is great enough, should this bill pass.

You're probably fighting an uphill battle arguing that toddlers with no understanding of how to safely use and handle guns should be allowed to go around firing handguns whenever and wherever they want.

As I said above, I do not believe that it is off the table to completely get rid of the resolution, but in order to make amendments to a resolution, one must first repeal it. I believe restrictions should be in place, but perhaps better clarified than it is in Resolution #235.


Thank you all for your feedback!

[Araraukar]

I believe restrictions should be in place, but perhaps better clarified than it is in Resolution #235.

OOC: You can write a replacement draft before managing to repeal something; it would only be illegal if you actually submitted it. When trying to repeal things that common sense says should be laws (like here not allowing kids to shoot at one another with real guns instead of toy ones, if they have no understanding of the damage real guns can do), writing up a replacement beforehand is recommended. I mean, trying to repeal something like this basically says "I think I could write a better one". Put your money where your mouth is, and if your replacement actually is better than the current resolution, then repealing it will be easier.

Also, replying in IC to OOC comments makes no sense as your ambassador character would be replying to voices only they can hear and thus appear to be more than a little insane.

[Morover]

I believe restrictions should be in place, but perhaps better clarified than it is in Resolution #235.

OOC: You can write a replacement draft before managing to repeal something; it would only be illegal if you actually submitted it. When trying to repeal things that common sense says should be laws (like here not allowing kids to shoot at one another with real guns instead of toy ones, if they have no understanding of the damage real guns can do), writing up a replacement beforehand is recommended. I mean, trying to repeal something like this basically says "I think I could write a better one". Put your money where your mouth is, and if your replacement actually is better than the current resolution, then repealing it will be easier.

Also, replying in IC to OOC comments makes no sense as your ambassador character would be replying to voices only they can hear and thus appear to be more than a little insane.

OOC: Alright. Again, I'm new to this, but I'll begin drafting up a replacement right away. Thanks for the advice.

As for my replying to OOC comments IC, I merely did it to make my message be more coherent rather than a loose collection of thoughts, but if that is frowned upon, I will refrain from doing so in the future.

[Morover]

EDIT: I submitted the draft for the replacement here.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I'll begin drafting up a replacement right away. Thanks for the advice.

OOC: Put it in a separate thread, not this same one. The basic forum rule is "one proposal per thread".

As for my replying to OOC comments IC, I merely did it to make my message be more coherent rather than a loose collection of thoughts

To do that, don't reply directly to an OOC comment, but have your ambassador make a general statement - like giving a speech, rather than doing a dialogue with someone.

[Morover]

OOC: I'll begin drafting up a replacement right away. Thanks for the advice.

OOC: Put it in a separate thread, not this same one. The basic forum rule is "one proposal per thread".

As for my replying to OOC comments IC, I merely did it to make my message be more coherent rather than a loose collection of thoughts

To do that, don't reply directly to an OOC comment, but have your ambassador make a general statement - like giving a speech, rather than doing a dialogue with someone.

Okay, will do. I deleted the other message I sent with the draft (as well as I could. I may be blind, but couldn't find a delete button). Should I link this thread to the new thread?

[Araraukar]

Okay, will do. I deleted the other message I sent with the draft (as well as I could. I may be blind, but couldn't find a delete button). Should I link this thread to the new thread?

OOC: The delete button goes away after someone has posted on the thread after your post. And yes, you should include a link to the other thread in the first post of both threads. That way people will know you're 1. working on a repeal and not intending to submit the replacement before repealing the existing one, and 2. that you're working on a replacement and are intending to have that ready to go (meaning that you should have both drafted to "perfection" before submitting the repeal) if you manage to repeal the existing one.

[Morover]

Submitted.

[Araraukar]

Submitted.

OOC: Why? Your replacement isn't ready to go yet.

[Morover]

Submitted.

OOC: Why? Your replacement isn't ready to go yet.

OOC: Because, quite frankly, the discussion became idle. Even when I stated my intentions to submit this soon, nobody objected. The current draft is very much different than the original I submitted, while still keeping in the same light. While I’m still willing to edit it, as it stands the proposal is near-complete.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Because, quite frankly, the discussion became idle. Even when I stated my intentions to submit this soon, nobody objected.

OOC: You posted this whole thing only 3 days ago. That's not enough time for it to become idle.

As for objections...

You're probably fighting an uphill battle arguing that toddlers with no understanding of how to safely use and handle guns should be allowed to go around firing handguns whenever and wherever they want.

trying to repeal something like this basically says "I think I could write a better one". Put your money where your mouth is, and if your replacement actually is better than the current resolution

Given that your replacement is worse than the target, why should anyone want to repeal the target?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Because, quite frankly, the discussion became idle. Even when I stated my intentions to submit this soon, nobody objected.

OOC: You posted this whole thing only 3 days ago. That's not enough time for it to become idle.

As for objections...

You're probably fighting an uphill battle arguing that toddlers with no understanding of how to safely use and handle guns should be allowed to go around firing handguns whenever and wherever they want.

trying to repeal something like this basically says "I think I could write a better one". Put your money where your mouth is, and if your replacement actually is better than the current resolution

Given that your replacement is worse than the target, why should anyone want to repeal the target?

"Why should anybody bother with a replacement? Who cares whether children in one nation have access to firearms?"

[Morover]

OOC: Because, quite frankly, the discussion became idle. Even when I stated my intentions to submit this soon, nobody objected.

OOC: You posted this whole thing only 3 days ago. That's not enough time for it to become idle.

As for objections...

You're probably fighting an uphill battle arguing that toddlers with no understanding of how to safely use and handle guns should be allowed to go around firing handguns whenever and wherever they want.

trying to repeal something like this basically says "I think I could write a better one". Put your money where your mouth is, and if your replacement actually is better than the current resolution

Given that your replacement is worse than the target, why should anyone want to repeal the target?

With all due respect, because I do believe you have good intent in mind, you haven’t provided any criticism for my replacement beyond clarifying what others have said. I don’t see why you believe that the replacement is worse then the target.

Personally, I don’t believe that there needs to be a replacement to repeal this target. However, many people have showed concern over a replacement resolution, therefore I listened. I do believe that a repeal is necessary, so I fixed it to the best of my abilities.

[Kenmoria]

“I have a few comments and queries which I have written on my copy of the draft in red. The main issue I have is that your reasoning appears to involve a lot of logical steps that have been omitted. Whilst they may still make sense to the authoring delegation due to them having created it, to the casual reader a disjointed feel is created. I also believe there were a few missed opportunities regarding criticism of the rather permissive nature of the target resolution.”

Repeal "Child Firearm Safety Act"

The World Assembly-- Was there any particular reason for there to be two dashes here? It looks somewhat strange to me.

Acknowledging that General Assembly Resolution #235 was created in order to prevent the harm of children. Indeed it was, though a good point to make would have been that the inclusion of a way for children to access lethal weapons through an undefined level of education. You could put that in the next draft.

Aware that General Assembly Resolution #235 does allow properly educated children to use a firearm. GA #235 does not, however, state what is meant by and what counts as a sufficient education. You could perhaps mention this in a future clause.

Concerned that restricting the use of children using firearms may have unintended consequences due to the economic limitations of a nation, which may lead to the inability to provide proper education. This clause has a rather meandering logic about it. You mention economic limitations of a nation, but then segue into education without any intermediate steps. Considering that most nations have weapons training for recreational use, which would hopefully be that for which children want guns, most of that would be done privately.

Determined that children do have safety procedures in place outside of this resolution. However, additional safety procedures on who can obtain a gun are not banned by the target.

Concerned that children may be defenseless in the case of intrusion. I’m don’t see any reason why you expect a child with a gun could do anything useful against a, possibly armed, adult intruder.

Acknowledging that some nations are unable to provide sufficient education courses to citizens, but still encourages the use of general firearms. If they are unable to provide sufficient education, then I do not see why firearm use, in children, should be encouraged or indeed allowed.

Understanding that it is near-impossible for a nation to adequately enforce this law. Why? There should be some clauses that support this notion. Though the above clause implies that some countries could have difficulty, nowhere do you address a near-impossibility.

Hereby repeal General Assembly Resolution #235 There is a small spelling mistake - ‘repeal’ should be ‘repeals’.

(OOC: I do agree that this should have been submitted at a later point; these comments are for a future draft.)

[Araraukar]

I do believe that a repeal is necessary

OOC: Why?

[Morover]

“I have a few comments and queries which I have written on my copy of the draft in red. The main issue I have is that your reasoning appears to involve a lot of logical steps that have been omitted. Whilst they may still make sense to the authoring delegation due to them having created it, to the casual reader a disjointed feel is created. I also believe there were a few missed opportunities regarding criticism of the rather permissive nature of the target resolution.”

Repeal "Child Firearm Safety Act"

The World Assembly-- Was there any particular reason for there to be two dashes here? It looks somewhat strange to me.

Acknowledging that General Assembly Resolution #235 was created in order to prevent the harm of children. Indeed it was, though a good point to make would have been that the inclusion of a way for children to access lethal weapons through an undefined level of education. You could put that in the next draft.

Aware that General Assembly Resolution #235 does allow properly educated children to use a firearm. GA #235 does not, however, state what is meant by and what counts as a sufficient education. You could perhaps mention this in a future clause.

Concerned that restricting the use of children using firearms may have unintended consequences due to the economic limitations of a nation, which may lead to the inability to provide proper education. This clause has a rather meandering logic about it. You mention economic limitations of a nation, but then segue into education without any intermediate steps. Considering that most nations have weapons training for recreational use, which would hopefully be that for which children want guns, most of that would be done privately.

Determined that children do have safety procedures in place outside of this resolution. However, additional safety procedures on who can obtain a gun are not banned by the target.

Concerned that children may be defenseless in the case of intrusion. I’m don’t see any reason why you expect a child with a gun could do anything useful against a, possibly armed, adult intruder.

Acknowledging that some nations are unable to provide sufficient education courses to citizens, but still encourages the use of general firearms. If they are unable to provide sufficient education, then I do not see why firearm use, in children, should be encouraged or indeed allowed.

Understanding that it is near-impossible for a nation to adequately enforce this law. Why? There should be some clauses that support this notion. Though the above clause implies that some countries could have difficulty, nowhere do you address a near-impossibility.

Hereby repeal General Assembly Resolution #235 There is a small spelling mistake - ‘repeal’ should be ‘repeals’.

(OOC: I do agree that this should have been submitted at a later point; these comments are for a future draft.)

OOC: Looking over the legislation with a new point of view, I fear that I have jumped the gun. I was very antsy about getting more legislation into the General Assembly, and submitted it early. I plan to continue to work on this. Also, sorry for the wait, I've have a few long days of work and I just haven't been up to editing this if I'm being honest.

IC:
Honestly, the two dashes were left over from when I mistakenly wrote "To the World Assembly--," and I failed to change the dashes too. Thank you for bringing my attention to it, I merely overlooked it and will change it.

While I agree with you on the inclusion on the topic of the lack of specified, I must ask if you believe it would be preferable to include the clause as an addition to the 'Acknowledging' clause, or to add an additional clause. I will add an additional clause clarifying this now, but if you believe that I should merely edit the existing clause, let me know.

And yes, I do agree with you on some parts of the draft to be rather loosely strung together thoughts, and I do plan to remedy that with my next edit.

Also, perhaps it's my fault, but I can't really understand what you mean by "However, additional safety procedures on who can obtain a gun are not banned by the target." Could you perhaps clarify for me?

Personally, I believe that untrained children with guns can be effective against intruders, mostly due to the relatively simple mechanics of basic firearms. I do believe that a child with a gun would be more effective against an intruder than an unarmed child.

Personally, I believe that the permission of firearms in children should be entirely up to the nation (I know, this sounds much like the NatSov argument), and this resolution puts much of the power to the people, which, while not an objectively bad thing, I believe that laws regarding firearm use should be put entirely up to the government, with no regard to whether or not they can supply proper education.

I will clarify what I mean by near-impossibility.

I will fix the spelling mistake right away.

I do believe that a repeal is necessary

OOC: Why?

OOC: Honestly, I just think it has flaws that I don't believe legislation should have. That doubled with me not really agreeing with the entire premise of the resolution, I believe that it is enough to repeal it. Even if this doesn't pass, it really has been a learning experience for me.

[Separatist Peoples]

I do believe that a repeal is necessary

OOC: Why?

OOC: Because regulation for regulation's sake is bad.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC:

“I have a few comments and queries which I have written on my copy of the draft in red. The main issue I have is that your reasoning appears to involve a lot of logical steps that have been omitted. Whilst they may still make sense to the authoring delegation due to them having created it, to the casual reader a disjointed feel is created. I also believe there were a few missed opportunities regarding criticism of the rather permissive nature of the target resolution.”



(OOC: I do agree that this should have been submitted at a later point; these comments are for a future draft.)

OOC: Looking over the legislation with a new point of view, I fear that I have jumped the gun. I was very antsy about getting more legislation into the General Assembly, and submitted it early. I plan to continue to work on this. Also, sorry for the wait, I've have a few long days of work and I just haven't been up to editing this if I'm being honest.

IC:
Honestly, the two dashes were left over from when I mistakenly wrote "To the World Assembly--," and I failed to change the dashes too. Thank you for bringing my attention to it, I merely overlooked it and will change it.

While I agree with you on the inclusion on the topic of the lack of specified, I must ask if you believe it would be preferable to include the clause as an addition to the 'Acknowledging' clause, or to add an additional clause. I will add an additional clause clarifying this now, but if you believe that I should merely edit the existing clause, let me know.

Unless you have a way to expand or add additional content, I recommend just editing the existing clause.

And yes, I do agree with you on some parts of the draft to be rather loosely strung together thoughts, and I do plan to remedy that with my next edit.

Also, perhaps it's my fault, but I can't really understand what you mean by "However, additional safety procedures on who can obtain a gun are not banned by the target." Could you perhaps clarify for me?

My understanding of the clause in your repeal is that the WA believes there should be safety measures outside the purview of the target resolution, and I was thus pointing out that any further safety measures could be imposed by nations at a later point.

Personally, I believe that untrained children with guns can be effective against intruders, mostly due to the relatively simple mechanics of basic firearms. I do believe that a child with a gun would be more effective against an intruder than an unarmed child.

If an intruder enters with a guns, he or she is probably highly trained, whereas the resident child would have had a far lesser amount of training and be quite likely to injure themselves in the process.

Personally, I believe that the permission of firearms in children should be entirely up to the nation (I know, this sounds much like the NatSov argument), and this resolution puts much of the power to the people, which, while not an objectively bad thing, I believe that laws regarding firearm use should be put entirely up to the government, with no regard to whether or not they can supply proper education.

This may be the reason behind a lot of my citique of your proposal; I am very anti-gun in real life, as is my IC nation, and both me and Kenmoria would not be opposed to a WA-wide ban on them. I have quite a strong belief that, if they are permitted, guns should only none allowed after a several-year training course including psychological examinations.

However as this is, of course, your proposal, feel free to ignore my ideological beliefs regarding the matter, as they aren’t really relevant. I believe the majority of players, at least based off of NSG polls, are in fact quite pro-gun.

I will clarify what I mean by near-impossibility.

I will fix the spelling mistake right away.

Thanks.)