[DEFEATED] "Right to Self-Defense" v2

[Nueva Rico]

Category: Civil Rights
Strength: Mild

Ashamed that this Assembly does not already guarantee or recognize the right of an individual to defend themselves and family from an imminent threat,

Cognizant that some governments deliberately oppose affording the right of self-protection in order to suppress the freedoms and liberties of the individuals and maintain a controlling presence on the populace,

Acknowledging that government services put in place to protect the lives of public and safety from harm - such as a police force - are not always readily available in a dire situation that may endanger the life of an individual and/or the lives of their family,

Hereby,

1. Defines “family” as someone related to an individual by blood, in marriage, in law, or of some substantial and tangible relationship,

2. Further defines “arms” as any weapons, munitions, or equipment designed to inflict bodily harm or physical damage, including, but not limited to, firearms, knives, explosives, etc.

3. Affirms the right to self-defense, of oneself and/or his or her family, and declares that nations are to permit and accept the exercise of this right as an affirmative defense in cases, so long as:

a) The threat poses a clear and immediate danger to the life of the individual or his or her family,

b) The force used in response is not excessive with regards to the threat of the situation presented,

c) The force used was not agin law enforcement or any other lawful force that does not infringe upon the rights established by this Assembly,

4. Affirms member states the right to attest the legality of the claim that a use of force was in self-defense, as according to the conditions established in Clause 3, in the court of law of the respective nation,

5. Clarifies that nothing in this resolution should be read to void, infringe, or adversely impact any other right to or regulation of arms affirmed by this Assembly, but prohibits any extant criminalization of an exercise of defensive force either with any common object or unarmed, in self-protection,

6. Further clarifies that nothing in this resolution should be read to infringe upon the efficacy of law enforcement or to promote violence,

Co-authored with Dirito-Opolis.

[Araraukar]

OOC: "Human Rights" category no longer exists.

IC: "I have a hard time seeing how something like this would be a civil right, given that you're trying to legalize murder in the name of so-called "self-defense". Also, clause 5 is unnecessary and certainly unnecessarily complicated. If the intention is to say that weapon restrictions aren't regulated by the proposal, then just say so."

[Bears Armed]

OOC: "Human Rights" category no longer exists.

IC: "I have a hard time seeing how something like this would be a civil right, given that you're trying to legalize murder in the name of so-called "self-defense".

OOC
Category should now be 'Civil Rights', instead, right.
And because the proposal would reduce government's right to limit people's actions that is the correct choice, under multiple precedents, regardless of your ideological opposition (just as proposals legalizing abortion go in this category despite some people regarding that as murder too...). [one-sixth of GenSec]

[Kenmoria]

“Clause 3c has ‘agin’ rather than ‘against’. Also, I am opposed on a matter of principle to this draft, as the concept of self-defence is one that should be more heavily limited to scenarios where it is the only possible option.”

[Araraukar]

OOC
regardless of your ideological opposition

OOC: That bit was in IC.

“I am opposed on a matter of principle to this draft, as the concept of self-defence is one that should be more heavily limited to scenarios where it is the only possible option.”

IC: "Entirely agreed."

[Christian Confederation]

Sounds good to me.

[Vichy Rich]

"This is outrageous! Only law enforcement should be permitted to handle situations that pose a threat to life, Human Resources or Citizens should not have the right! It is in our best interest that any crimes or actions committed be reported to the Vichy Rich National Police Service and such offender be handled in our courts!"

OOC: I actually do like this bill, it looks good. Just RPing my country

[Araraukar]

OOC: This was submitted and campaigned and is about to go into vote. Why wasn't it re-drafted properly?

[South City park]

We need people who can protect themselves. It the right of our great nation.

[Elyreia]

Ambassador, if I may clarify a point:

"Defines “family” as someone related to an individual by blood, in marriage, in law, or of some substantial and tangible relationship,"

Elyreian law has methods by which civilians and citizens can be members of a "house" without standard legal methods such as marriage, adoption, or birthrights. Primarily there are servants or guards that may be employed within the household, given residency. Would the self defense laws extend to defending these persons in the event of forcible entry with intent to harm the occupants?

Likewise, will this legislation cover the protection of invited guests of the host family? For example, a party is held for a child's fourth birthday and parents and children are invited that are decidedly not related by any means and cannot be defined as "family". If armed intrusion with intent to cause harm occurs, would the home owners still have the right to defend not just themselves but their invited guests? As it stands, this resolution would prevent the homeowners from defending their attendees and guests without the same protections of self-defense as would have had were it only familial relations.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

OOC: Bad typo. Bad. And on principle, opposed for lack of appropriate drafting, even though I would love to see an even stronger right of self-defence enshrined.

[Lyxtovia]

I support it. A right to self-defense is one of the most basic human rights, we can't deny that.

[Bears Armed]

Likewise, will this legislation cover the protection of invited guests of the host family? For example, a party is held for a child's fourth birthday and parents and children are invited that are decidedly not related by any means and cannot be defined as "family". If armed intrusion with intent to cause harm occurs, would the home owners still have the right to defend not just themselves but their invited guests? As it stands, this resolution would prevent the homeowners from defending their attendees and guests without the same protections of self-defense as would have had were it only familial relations.

And, likewise, would those guests still have the right to help defend their hosts?

[Battlion]

I’d argue that the critical spelling error still leaves a huge loophole open, that and the fact that this was submitted without considering any feedback again.

Opposed.

[Elyreia]

Elyreia will be looking to repeal this legislation if it passes due to the above listed loopholes, in hopes of more fulfilling legislation to replace it.

[Wallenburg]

I’d argue that the critical spelling error still leaves a huge loophole open, that and the fact that this was submitted without considering any feedback again.

Opposed.

What spelling error?

[The Anti-Social Socialists]

Hmm. Opposed, if only due to a perceived error in clause 3.
'3. Affirms the right to self-defense, of oneself and/or his or her family, and declares that nations are to permit and accept the exercise of this right as an affirmative defense in cases, so long as:...'

To my knowledge, it is problematic to attempt to legislate for 'nations' as opposed to 'member nations'. These things might have been caught before submission had it undergone a proper draft phase...

[Sector Ten]

I support it. A right to self-defense is one of the most basic human rights, we can't deny that.

You also cannot deny the fact that this bill could be taken very unfair advantage of for the sake of individual benefits or unlawful intentions.

[Sector Ten]

I’d argue that the critical spelling error still leaves a huge loophole open, that and the fact that this was submitted without considering any feedback again.

Opposed.

What spelling error?

agin instead of again

[Sector Ten]

There is no telling how fast this can go south in terms of public safety and social harmony. For instance, any conflict, which may happen due to something as simple as a difference of opinion, which may turn violent, may lead to disastrous consequences. The citizens cannot be expected to rightfully uphold the purpose of this bill as the WA intends to.

[Wallenburg]

What spelling error?

agin instead of again

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agin

[Mundiferrum]

We're not necessarily opposed to this in principle, but the proposal itself has a lot of fluff. It restricts self defense to family (an unreasonable restriction, with a family's guests being one illuminating example) while broadly defining family to practical uselessness; its definition and use of the term "arms" is also largely superfluous; and, probably worst of all, for all its text on self defense, aside from a very loose interpretation of part of the fifth active clause, this proposal doesn't seem to concern the right to self defense of groups (all the pronouns involved are individual), nor the same right of member nations. We feel that this resolution elaborates on the aspects of this right that should probably be the least elaborated on by an international legislative body such as this.

[Kenmoria]

Hmm. Opposed, if only due to a perceived error in clause 3.
'3. Affirms the right to self-defense, of oneself and/or his or her family, and declares that nations are to permit and accept the exercise of this right as an affirmative defense in cases, so long as:...'

To my knowledge, it is problematic to attempt to legislate for 'nations' as opposed to 'member nations'. These things might have been caught before submission had it undergone a proper draft phase...

(OOC: Indeed, it has been ruled illegal on a similar vein before, due to having a perceived effect on legislating in non-WA nations. If the entire proposal uses ‘nations’ it is fine, but having ‘member states’ as well as ‘nations’ draws a distinction which could be seen as trying to force non-WA nations to take action.)

[The Sakhalinsk Empire]

Support. It is a very solid proposal, excluding "agin" and "nations", and we need WA legislation on self defence as it is human nature to protect oneself and their relatives.

[Revolutionary Left Movement]

No.

This is too vague. Also, DRito voting against is priceless