[DRAFT] Convention on the Use of Nonlethal Technologies

[Separatist Peoples]

"The recent vote on inhumane weaponry made me consider certain alternative approaches to those weapons that do not merely kill."

Convention on the Use of Nonlethal Technologies
Civil Rights | Significant

Acknowledging the advancements technology has brought to limit harm caused by military and law enforcement;

Recognizing that, without appropriate safeguards, regimes may use indiscriminate nonlethal force to subdue political dissidents, disadvantaged minorities, and assembled opposition to silence, abuse, intimidate, and otherwise oppress those who speak against them under the disingenuous claim that they are using merciful nonlethal force;

Infuriated that some might defend nonlethal force to excuse violence even when it does result in death and permanent injury;

Asserting that such abuse, even without the infliction of death, of a population is entirely intolerable;

Striking a balance between the reasonable needs of order and those of the rights of victims;

The World Assembly enacts the following:

1. “Less-lethal weapons” are weapon systems designed and intended to temporarily incapacitate or impair a living target using a mechanism that limits the risk of death or permanent injury. A weapon may not be considered a less-lethal weapon unless they are intentionally designed to substantially limit permanent harm or impairment and do so in practice. In no case may member states consider the application of force from an otherwise lethal weapon in a manner calculated to only wound as a less-lethal weapon.
   
   
2. Member states may interpret this law to apply only to the use of less-lethal weapons against noncombatants and not lawful combatants engaged in active combat.
   
   
3. Member states and their agents may, and should, use less-lethal weapons as an alternative to conventional weapons.
   
   
4. Member states and their agents may only use less-lethal weapons:
   
   
   1. To subdue or corral those engaged in or imminently about to engage in unlawful activity; or
      
      
   2. To limit the escalation of force congruent with actual and perceived threats of violence.
   Member states must carefully limit use to avoid collateral damage to individuals and property and use the appropriate care and restraint that a reasonable person with similar experience and training would apply in similar circumstances.
   
   
5. Member states may immunize both themselves and their agents for appropriate use of less-lethal weapons as outlined above and must indemnify their agents upon successful defense against allegations of misuse.
   
   
6. Member states may not consider the use of less lethal weapons in violation of the above requirements permissible and must not extend legal immunity to themselves or their agents under such circumstances.
   
   
7. If the inappropriate use of force creates criminal culpability, member states must prosecute the perpetrator accordingly:
   
   
   1. Member states must consider the abuse of less-lethal weapons in a conflict area a war crime and prosecute accordingly.
      
      
   2. Member states must consider the abuse of less-lethal weapons by domestic law enforcement in domestic scenarios an egregious criminal act and prosecute accordingly.
   Under either situation, member states must consider the reasonableness and applicability of the use of force as outlined in clause 4 as a question of fact and remit the question to an independent and impartial finder of fact.
   
   
8. Victims of unlawful use of less-lethal weapons may seek civil punitive damages in addition to civil compensatory damages against the state or its agents.

[Tinhampton]

The title made me smile

"I can't see anything wrong with it" = full support, as always. (But why exactly does your second sentence in Article 1 not begin with a capital letter? "weapon may be considered a less-lethal weapon" appears a bit disjointed...)

[WayNeacTia]

Member states and their agents may, and should, use less-lethal weapons as an alternative to conventional weapons.

"Could you please change the should to encouraged? Should could be construed as a demand upon member nations, which would take lethal force options, should they become necessary off the table. Otherwise we can support this."

Wayne

[Excidium Planetis]

"The overuse of the word 'may' could lead to some nations interpreting almost all the operative clauses here as optional." Schultz notes. "Even Clause Four, although it could be a stretch. It all comes down to how you break the sentence apart. It could be read as 'Nations may [choose to] only use less lethal weapons in W, X, Y and Z cases. Or they may not. It's optional!"

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

[*]“Less-lethal weapons” are weapon systems designed and intended to temporarily incapacitate or impair a living target using a mechanism that limits the risk of death or permanent injury. A weapon may not be considered a less-lethal weapon unless they are intentionally designed to substantially limit permanent harm or impairment and do so in practice.

OOC: I believe you need the word not in there. Suggested placement in red. Otherwise, we would have a paradox between the definition and the clarification.

[Separatist Peoples]

The title made me smile

"I can't see anything wrong with it" = full support, as always. (But why exactly does your second sentence in Article 1 not begin with a capital letter? "weapon may be considered a less-lethal weapon" appears a bit disjointed...)

[*]“Less-lethal weapons” are weapon systems designed and intended to temporarily incapacitate or impair a living target using a mechanism that limits the risk of death or permanent injury. A weapon may not be considered a less-lethal weapon unless they are intentionally designed to substantially limit permanent harm or impairment and do so in practice.

OOC: I believe you need the word not in there. Suggested placement in red. Otherwise, we would have a paradox between the definition and the clarification.

"Corrected accordingly."

Member states and their agents may, and should, use less-lethal weapons as an alternative to conventional weapons.

"Could you please change the should to encouraged? Should could be construed as a demand upon member nations, which would take lethal force options, should they become necessary off the table. Otherwise we can support this."

Wayne

"Given the presence of mandatory language, I do not believe that one can accept a reasonable construction of 'should' in this to mean a mandatory obligation. Should in a legal sense is optional, denoting, at best, a moral obligation without a legal one. That is as I intended the phrase. Given that in other places I can and do use more forceful language to suggest an operative phrase, I must respectfully disagree with this interpretation, ambassador."

"The overuse of the word 'may' could lead to some nations interpreting almost all the operative clauses here as optional." Schultz notes. "Even Clause Four, although it could be a stretch. It all comes down to how you break the sentence apart. It could be read as 'Nations may [choose to] only use less lethal weapons in W, X, Y and Z cases. Or they may not. It's optional!"

"I am not sure I agree, ambassador. Clauses two and three are optional by their phrasing, but clause four creates a set of conditions, at least one of which must be satisfied before nations can use less lethal weapons. They may elect not to use less lethal weaponry, but are obligated to satisfy the limits in clause four first. My use of 'only' makes the clause limiting in that regard.

"I recognize a certain asymmetry inherent in May being permissive while May Not is mandatory, but I believe that comes from the nature of the World Assembly as an authoritative superior body. It hands down edicts when one can act, when one must act, and when one must not act, and an action is only permissive at the World Assembly's sufferance.

"Clause five and eight similarly are optional. They present a choice."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...clause four creates a set of conditions, at least one of which must be satisfied before nations can use less lethal weapons. They may elect not to use less lethal weaponry, but are obligated to satisfy the limits in clause four first. My use of 'only' makes the clause limiting in that regard...

"Yes, sir, about that fourth clause. Is there a reason subclause (c) uses the word 'or' instead of 'and'? All of those conditions seem necessary according to our values and laws, not to mention those of the World Assembly. And, for example, the mere limitation of collateral damage doesn't by itself justify the use of such weapons in the absence of the other conditions."

"One other item; it's less a priority, but the unlawful activity cited in Clause 4(a) ought to be violent or destructive, no? It's hardly in keeping with the rule of law to permit law enforcement to use pepper spray at point blank range on people sitting in the road blocking traffic. Unless they then become violent, there's no reason such people can't be arrested by simple ordinary use of musclepower and cuffs. Allowing the use of weapons, even less lethal ones, on non-violent lawbreakers conditions law enforcement to reach for their guns first, and de-escalate rarely or never. This 'thin blue line' mentality is more appropriate for a psychotic dictatorship, not a functioning WA member state."

[The Yellow Monkey]

Member states and their agents may, and should, use less-lethal weapons as an alternative to conventional weapons.

Illegal. Contradicts existing legislation.

Member states may immunize both themselves and their agents for appropriate use of less-lethal weapons as outlined above and must indemnify their agents upon successful defense against allegations of misuse.

I fail to see how this expands individual civil rights in any way. I'm also not sure you've used the concept of indemnification correctly here. Usually, when a party indemnifies another, it means that they will defend and protect the other party for any legal liability. If there's been a successful defense there's no liability, and hence no need for indemnification.

Victims of unlawful use of less-lethal weapons may seek civil punitive damages in addition to civil compensatory damages.

This is shocking to see coming from the same delegation that has railed against any WA firearms regulations on the grounds that such regulation would be needless micromanagement of an issue best left to WA nations and their individual justice systems. There is absolutely no principled reason to conclude that the WA should recognize that people have a civil right to seek compensation for the unlawful use of less-lethal weapons, but should not do anything at all when it comes to the use of lethal weapons. You're position with this proposal is intellectually dishonest in light of your past statements on gun control. I may be the only one willing to call you on it, but I'm not inclined to support you in your hypocrisy.

[Separatist Peoples]

Member states and their agents may, and should, use less-lethal weapons as an alternative to conventional weapons.

Illegal. Contradicts existing legislation.

"Considering the clause is optional, I am disinclined to agree."

I fail to see how this expands individual civil rights in any way.

"I cannot control what you see, ambassador, but lament your difficulty. Would that the world was more clear to us all."

I'm also not sure you've used the concept of indemnification correctly here. Usually, when a party indemnifies another, it means that they will defend and protect the other party for any legal liability. If there's been a successful defense there's no liability, and hence no need for indemnification.

"The cost of defense is still incurred. In systems without a fee shifting arrangement, indemnity is necessary to avoid a de facto penalty, or you'll have sold your skin to save your bones."

This is shocking to see coming from the same delegation that has railed against any WA firearms regulations on the grounds that such regulation would be needless micromanagement of an issue best left to WA nations and their individual justice systems.

"I am very sorry if this proposal shocks you, ambassador."

There is absolutely no principled reason to conclude that the WA should recognize that people have a civil right to seek compensation for the unlawful use of less-lethal weapons, but should not do anything at all when it comes to the use of lethal weapons. You're position with this proposal is intellectually dishonest in light of your past statements on gun control.

"I appreciate you pointing this out, ambassador. It notes a weakness in my proposal, which is that that clause was only ever intended to apply against the state use of nonlethal force, but not private use of force. I will correct that accordingly in the sure and certain hope that my oversight will not confuse any other delegations."

I may be the only one willing to call you on it, but I'm not inclined to support you in your hypocrisy.

"I lament that you bear such a disagreeable outlook on my work, both this draft and as a representative for my national interests."

[The COT Corporation]

"I can drink to this."

[Joshii]

I can mostly agree to this but what if a member is in a state of war? Would the usage of high caliber weapons be illegal on a time a defending nation needs the most?

[Separatist Peoples]

I can mostly agree to this but what if a member is in a state of war? Would the usage of high caliber weapons be illegal on a time a defending nation needs the most?

"I have no idea why this is remotely in question, ambassador. Have you read this proposal?"

[Separatist Peoples]

"I have made all accepted changes and reworked clause 4 to be more in line with the proposal's intent."

[Bears Armed]

“Less-lethal weapons” are weapon systems designed and intended to temporarily incapacitate or impair a living target using a mechanism that limits the risk of death or permanent injury. A weapon may not be considered a less-lethal weapon unless they are intentionally designed to substantially limit permanent harm or impairment and do so in practice. In no case may member states consider the application of force from an otherwise lethal weapon in a manner calculated to only wound as a less-lethal weapon.

OOC
If a particular type of gun or other missile weapon could be used to launch both lethal and 'less lethal' ammunition, would this clause actually ban its use with 'less lethal' rounds?

[Separatist Peoples]

“Less-lethal weapons” are weapon systems designed and intended to temporarily incapacitate or impair a living target using a mechanism that limits the risk of death or permanent injury. A weapon may not be considered a less-lethal weapon unless they are intentionally designed to substantially limit permanent harm or impairment and do so in practice. In no case may member states consider the application of force from an otherwise lethal weapon in a manner calculated to only wound as a less-lethal weapon.

OOC
If a particular type of gun or other missile weapon could be used to launch both lethal and 'less lethal' ammunition, would this clause actually ban its use with 'less lethal' rounds?

Ooc: probably. That sounds far too fact specific to be readily answerable as a hypothetical. At best I can guess, a weapon with two distinct modes of use (think Trek phasers set to stun vs kill) would be no different than two separate weapons systems for the purpose of compliance. Conversely, shooting somebody in the kneecap with a standard issue rifle wouldnt make the rifle nonlethal.

Were I a judge and were this law in force, I would make the distinction between exclusive settings or modes whereby the nonlethal setting reasonably precludes lethal force. I'm not, so I suspect member states have some wiggle room on how they wish to test the issue.

Edit: and thank you for asking that! It was a major concern during drafting, and I'm glad it came up soon.

[Bears Armed]

“Less-lethal weapons” are weapon systems designed and intended to temporarily incapacitate or impair a living target using a mechanism that limits the risk of death or permanent injury. A weapon may not be considered a less-lethal weapon unless they are intentionally designed to substantially limit permanent harm or impairment and do so in practice. In no case may member states consider the application of force from an otherwise lethal weapon in a manner calculated to only wound as a less-lethal weapon.

OOC
If a particular type of gun or other missile weapon could be used to launch both lethal and 'less lethal' ammunition, would this clause actually ban its use with 'less lethal' rounds?

Ooc: probably. That sounds far too fact specific to be readily answerable as a hypothetical. At best I can guess, a weapon with two distinct modes of use (think Trek phasers set to stun vs kill) would be no different than two separate weapons systems for the purpose of compliance. Conversely, shooting somebody in the kneecap with a standard issue rifle wouldnt make the rifle nonlethal.

Were I a judge and were this law in force, I would make the distinction between exclusive settings or modes whereby the nonlethal setting reasonably precludes lethal force. I'm not, so I suspect member states have some wiggle room on how they wish to test the issue.

Edit: and thank you for asking that! It was a major concern during drafting, and I'm glad it came up soon.

OOC
I was actually thinking in terms of a grenade-launcher being used to project (for example) tear-gas rounds....

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: probably. That sounds far too fact specific to be readily answerable as a hypothetical. At best I can guess, a weapon with two distinct modes of use (think Trek phasers set to stun vs kill) would be no different than two separate weapons systems for the purpose of compliance. Conversely, shooting somebody in the kneecap with a standard issue rifle wouldnt make the rifle nonlethal.

Were I a judge and were this law in force, I would make the distinction between exclusive settings or modes whereby the nonlethal setting reasonably precludes lethal force. I'm not, so I suspect member states have some wiggle room on how they wish to test the issue.

Edit: and thank you for asking that! It was a major concern during drafting, and I'm glad it came up soon.

OOC
I was actually thinking in terms of a grenade-launcher being used to project (for example) tear-gas rounds....

Ooc: I'm not sure how that would be different. A launcher with a nonlethal round cannot simultaneously fire a lethal round. Until a lethal round is loaded, it is effectively in nonlethal mode. I believe the current language permits nations, if they so desire, to make a proper distinction even then.

Similar arguments can be made with rubber bullets and beanbag shotgun rounds. A weapon loaded with a nonlethal round can be considered a nonlethal weapon so long as it has those nonlethal contents. If you, say, loaded a rubber bullet and then a real one (leaving off the cycling issues), then the weapon goes from nonlethal to lethal in a legal sense upon cycling from one to the other. Those fundamental differences in the system as a whole are legally relevant.

[The Yellow Monkey]

Member states and their agents may, and should, use less-lethal weapons as an alternative to conventional weapons.

This remains illegal. Another WA resolution expressly reserves matters of domestic firearms policy to member nations, except in narrow circumstances not present here. There's no point in passing a law just to tell member states that they may do something they already had the power to do. Encouraging member states to adopt a policy of non-lethal force, by telling them they "should" do so, impermissibly inserts the WA into purely domestic firearms policy in violation of GAR #399.

Unless you're saying that you believe Mild proposals which encourage particular policy behavior do not contradict other legislation expressly reserving that policy area to member states. If that is your interpretation, it would be quite interesting indeed.

Member states may immunize both themselves and their agents for appropriate use of less-lethal weapons as outlined above...

When I pointed out that this clause does not protect any civil rights, you said: "I cannot control what you see, ambassador, but lament your difficulty. Would that the world was more clear to us all."

I'll take this sagacity as a request for a more information about the objection and be more clear. Permitting member nations to immunize themselves from suit (something they already have the power to do without this legislation btw) does not protect any individual rights. The only use of that aspect of this clause would be to block a future law that might require member states to subject themselves to suit for any harm arising out of state-sanctioned violence, which is a position detrimental to individual civil rights in favor of protecting the government.

...and must indemnify their agents upon successful defense against allegations of misuse.

Re: indemnification. I told you that you used the concept incorrectly. You responded: "The cost of defense is still incurred. In systems without a fee shifting arrangement, indemnity is necessary to avoid a de facto penalty, or you'll have sold your skin to save your bones."

Of course that rationale actually does not work here, as the officer would have already paid for their defense in order to find out if the defense was "successful." Having the state reimburse an agent who has already successfully defended themselves is not indemnification.

Based on what you said above, what you're looking for is a state duty to defend all agents accused of misuse of force, but with the authority to withhold indemnification if the officer is ultimately found to have misused their authority. Conceptually this is still flawed and does not protect individual civil rights. Assume an officer misuses force and, under this provision, the state refuses to indemnify the officer. The harmed person may never be made whole, as the individual officer is probably judgement proof when facing a large civil damages award. For example, it's unlikely the cop who unlawfully used a stun-gun on a small child is going to have the personal resources to make good on a million dollar judgement.

What the proposal really ought to be doing is expressly requiring member nations to fully compensate an individual who has been subjected to unlawful less-lethal force by a state agent.

That's enough on the subject I think; do with that legal analysis as you will. Some people can acknowledge when they've stumbled on a tricky cobblestone; others insist that they always meant to walk like that. Your set up here could use improvement but if you don't want to see that then there's nothing left to discuss.

There is absolutely no principled reason to conclude that the WA should recognize that people have a civil right to seek compensation for the unlawful use of less-lethal weapons, but should not do anything at all when it comes to the use of lethal weapons. You're position with this proposal is intellectually dishonest in light of your past statements on gun control.

"I appreciate you pointing this out, ambassador. It notes a weakness in my proposal, which is that that clause was only ever intended to apply against the state use of nonlethal force, but not private use of force. I will correct that accordingly in the sure and certain hope that my oversight will not confuse any other delegations."

Ah ha, but you see moving the posts in this way does not actually resolve the tension between your position taken here and your position taken on gun control! For if people have a civil rights interest to be free from state use of less-lethal violence, they surely must also have an equal or greater civil rights interest in being free from state use of firearms violence. So your position that any legislation on purely-internal firearms policy can never be an international civil rights issue is still in conflict with what you propose here.

I may be the only one willing to call you on it, but I'm not inclined to support you in your hypocrisy.

"I lament that you bear such a disagreeable outlook on my work, both this draft and as a representative for my national interests."

I speak with a sharp tongue only to open a door in your mind, with force if necessary. I suppose I should be more cordial when a person seems to be possibly re-evaluating rigid opinions once held. It is never too late to re-examine an older view and determine that, on further reflection, what seemed like a monolithic truth is actually nuanced.

There are those who, because they keep an open mind, may by grace receive an epiphany now and again. Then there are those whose principles simply bend to suit their wants and deeds, rigid at one moment but flexible at the next all so that the person can reach whatever their desired ends. When confronted with an apparent inconsistency in logic, I am reflexively skeptical of the intentions of others. If I could believe that you've fundamentally changed your view on the right in principle to be free from violence, I would celebrate that with great noise. It is difficult to be sure.

[Separatist Peoples]

This remains illegal. Another WA resolution expressly reserves matters of domestic firearms policy to member nations, except in narrow circumstances not present here. There's no point in passing a law just to tell member states that they may do something they already had the power to do. Encouraging member states to adopt a policy of non-lethal force, by telling them they "should" do so, impermissibly inserts the WA into purely domestic firearms policy in violation of GAR #399.

Unless you're saying that you believe Mild proposals which encourage particular policy behavior do not contradict other legislation expressly reserving that policy area to member states. If that is your interpretation, it would be quite interesting indeed.

"I am afraid that I disagree with your reading, but would be more than happy to clarify that this applies to state use of force and not individual use of force. My reading if domestic firearm policy is that it affects the private citizen's use of arms against other citizens or for nonviolent use, not the use of weaponry by the state against citizens. Now, ambassador, I am willing to concede that two people can have different interpretations of the same law. I could well be wrong. But I am not convinced that my reading is impermissible. Do you feel that a clarifying edit to limit this to state action would ameliorate your concern? I am hopeful to avoid a bout of accusations of intellectual dishonesty when reasonable interpretations support both positions."

I'll take this sagacity as a request for a more information about the objection and be more clear. Permitting member nations to immunize themselves from suit (something they already have the power to do without this legislation btw) does not protect any individual rights. The only use of that aspect of this clause would be to block a future law that might require member states to subject themselves to suit for any harm arising out of state-sanctioned violence, which is a position detrimental to individual civil rights in favor of protecting the government.

"Were this the only operative clause, ambassador, you'd be quite right. However, other clauses limiting behavior bolster my claim to the category in the same way that limitations on other oppressive acts protect one's rights to participate fully in society."

Of course that rationale actually does not work here, as the officer would have already paid for their defense in order to find out if the defense was "successful." Having the state reimburse an agent who has already successfully defended themselves is not indemnification.

Ooc: given my own practice is based more or less exclusively on indemnification clauses, I dont think that's right. Indemnity is not just reimbursement. It is an assumption of costs and responsibilities. An indemnifying party all but stands in the shoes of the indemnified party.

]Based on what you said above, what you're looking for is a state duty to defend all agents accused of misuse of force, but with the authority to withhold indemnification if the officer is ultimately found to have misused their authority. Conceptually this is still flawed and does not protect individual civil rights. Assume an officer misuses force and, under this provision, the state refuses to indemnify the officer. The harmed person may never be made whole, as the individual officer is probably judgement proof when facing a large civil damages award. For example, it's unlikely the cop who unlawfully used a stun-gun on a small child is going to have the personal resources to make good on a million dollar judgement.

"That a remedy is not ideal does not mean the remedy does not exist, ambassador. You can argue that the risk of such penalties is not sufficient to protect civil rights, but the threat of such penalties does not obviate the risk now born by those abusing such rights."

What the proposal really ought to be doing is expressly requiring member nations to fully compensate an individual who has been subjected to unlawful less-lethal force by a state agent.

That's enough on the subject I think; do with that legal analysis as you will. Some people can acknowledge when they've stumbled on a tricky cobblestone; others insist that they always meant to walk like that. Your set up here could use improvement but if you don't want to see that then there's nothing left to discuss.

"You have made excellent points, ambassador. Please do not mistake my defense for an unwillingness to accept them. I believe that your criticism is salient and intend to revisit this particular apparatus."

Ah ha, but you see moving the posts in this way does not actually resolve the tension between your position taken here and your position taken on gun control!

"I cannot agree that I have moved the goal posts so much as I have clarified my position in light of confusion."

For if people have a civil rights interest to be free from state use of less-lethal violence, they surely must also have an equal or greater civil rights interest in being free from state use of firearms violence. So your position that any legislation on purely-internal firearms policy can never be an international civil rights issue is still in conflict with what you propose here.

"I think you, again, misconstrue my conception of domestic firearms policy. State use of violence against it's own people is not a domestic issue per se any more than any other state sanctioned abuse, be it slavery or genocide or what have you. Private individuals without the imprimatur of the state engaged in violence is a domestic concern."

I speak with a sharp tongue only to open a door in your mind, with force if necessary. I suppose I should be more cordial when a person seems to be possibly re-evaluating rigid opinions once held. It is never too late to re-examine an older view and determine that, on further reflection, what seemed like a monolithic truth is actually nuanced.

There are those who, because they keep an open mind, may by grace receive an epiphany now and again. Then there are those whose principles simply bend to suit their wants and deeds, rigid at one moment but flexible at the next all so that the person can reach whatever their desired ends. When confronted with an apparent inconsistency in logic, I am reflexively skeptical of the intentions of others. If I could believe that you've fundamentally changed your view on the right in principle to be free from violence, I would celebrate that with great noise. It is difficult to be sure.

"Ambassador, I do not agree, and will not agree, that domestic use or access to firearms by individual non state actors is an international issue. I can agree that the specific use of violence by the state is an international issue, however, as the state is otherwise the monopoly holder of force. I believe, as noted before, that you have oversimplified my position on the matter. Fundamentally."

[Excidium Planetis]

"I am afraid that I disagree with your reading, but would be more than happy to clarify that this applies to state use of force and not individual use of force. My reading if domestic firearm policy is that it affects the private citizen's use of arms against other citizens or for nonviolent use, not the use of weaponry by the state against citizens. Now, ambassador, I am willing to concede that two people can have different interpretations of the same law. I could well be wrong. But I am not convinced that my reading is impermissible. Do you feel that a clarifying edit to limit this to state action would ameliorate your concern? I am hopeful to avoid a bout of accusations of intellectual dishonesty when reasonable interpretations support both positions."

"If you believe agents of the government are not 'citizens', Ambassador Bell, then you could indeed reach a lot of strange conclusions like that." Cornelia Schultz teases. "In most nations the government is under domestic firearms policy as much as the common person. GA#399 doesn't even use the word 'domestic', by the way. It says 'purely internal arms trading or firearms policy'. I'm pretty sure use of non-lethal weapons within your borders counts as purely internal policy."

[Separatist Peoples]

"I am afraid that I disagree with your reading, but would be more than happy to clarify that this applies to state use of force and not individual use of force. My reading if domestic firearm policy is that it affects the private citizen's use of arms against other citizens or for nonviolent use, not the use of weaponry by the state against citizens. Now, ambassador, I am willing to concede that two people can have different interpretations of the same law. I could well be wrong. But I am not convinced that my reading is impermissible. Do you feel that a clarifying edit to limit this to state action would ameliorate your concern? I am hopeful to avoid a bout of accusations of intellectual dishonesty when reasonable interpretations support both positions."

"If you believe agents of the government are not 'citizens', Ambassador Bell, then you could indeed reach a lot of strange conclusions like that." Cornelia Schultz teases. "In most nations the government is under domestic firearms policy as much as the common person. GA#399 doesn't even use the word 'domestic', by the way. It says 'purely internal arms trading or firearms policy'. I'm pretty sure use of non-lethal weapons within your borders counts as purely internal policy."

"A reading out of character with the remainder of GAR#399's material and even the relevant clauses, ambassador. And, might I add, if you cannot understand the distinction I made between a person acting as a private individual and a person acting as an agent of the state and prefer instead to quibble over a nonsequitur like my casual use of 'citizen', I see little reason to value your contribution overmuch. Let us leave aside such cavils and retain a more functional discussion."

[Excidium Planetis]

"A reading out of character with the remainder of GAR#399's material and even the relevant clauses, ambassador. And, might I add, if you cannot understand the distinction I made between a person acting as a private individual and a person acting as an agent of the state and prefer instead to quibble over a nonsequitur like my casual use of 'citizen', I see little reason to value your contribution overmuch. Let us leave aside such cavils and retain a more functional discussion."

"Ambassador, do you mean to tell me that your nation's governmental workers are not beholden to any national laws regarding firearms? Even my own home nation, which is neither known for strict firearms regulations nor for a lack of government use of lethal force, still nevertheless has laws governing the use and possession of firearms by state actors¹. These national laws could not be considered anything other than purely internal firearms policy."


1. I'm sure, as you studied law and doubtless know how to look up certain laws, know of or could find many examples of US gun laws that apply to state actors. One example I know of is California's regulations on assault weapons, which have specific regulations for active military members entering the state.

[Separatist Peoples]

"A reading out of character with the remainder of GAR#399's material and even the relevant clauses, ambassador. And, might I add, if you cannot understand the distinction I made between a person acting as a private individual and a person acting as an agent of the state and prefer instead to quibble over a nonsequitur like my casual use of 'citizen', I see little reason to value your contribution overmuch. Let us leave aside such cavils and retain a more functional discussion."

"Ambassador, do you mean to tell me that your nation's governmental workers are not beholden to any national laws regarding firearms? Even my own home nation, which is neither known for strict firearms regulations nor for a lack of government use of lethal force, still nevertheless has laws governing the use and possession of firearms by state actors¹. These national laws could not be considered anything other than purely internal firearms policy."


1. I'm sure, as you studied law and doubtless know how to look up certain laws, know of or could find many examples of US gun laws that apply to state actors. One example I know of is California's regulations on assault weapons, which have specific regulations for active military members entering the state.

"If I was not aware of your esteemed legal acumen, ambassador, I might accuse you of idiocy. As I know better, I can only assume this is bad faith argument intended to wear me down by addressing minutiae irrelevant to the point I have made. My casual use of citizen cannot, in good faith, be read to literally contend that state employees are noncitizens, nor that their status as state actors precludes applicability. I will not dignify this nonsequitur with further energy."

[Araraukar]

IC: "An easy solution is to define the less-lethal weapons so that they do not include firearms - which to my knowledge are lethal weapons, though I admit not being an expert, what with diplomatic corps not being among the few classes of people allowed to own or use firearms in Araraukar. Barring major changes, as long as use of non-lethal methods against aspiring pirates is allowed by citizens serving on civilian ships, we have no objections."

OOC: Pirate attacks on freight ships are sometimes a problem near Araraukar's seaborder, because the neighbouring nation has a somewhat more lax attitude towards such attacks, much to Araraukarian coast guard's annoyance. Hence all Araraukarian freight ships have non-lethal weaponry, including high-powered water hose "cannons", sonic weaponry and flash grenades (think RL flashbangs but without the thunderclap).

[Excidium Planetis]

"If I was not aware of your esteemed legal acumen, ambassador, I might accuse you of idiocy. As I know better, I can only assume this is bad faith argument intended to wear me down by addressing minutiae irrelevant to the point I have made. My casual use of citizen cannot, in good faith, be read to literally contend that state employees are noncitizens, nor that their status as state actors precludes applicability. I will not dignify this nonsequitur with further energy."

"I've been accused several times of idiocy, Mr. Bell," Cornelia Schultz admits, "but almost all times acquitted. Let's see if we can rephrase the argument here:

"Say Nation X has domestic firearms regulations that pertain to the use of non-lethal firearms or ammunition, and reasonably these laws apply to state officials as well as common citizens. Now your proposal comes along and issues restrictions on their use where before the restrictions were different. Now there's a clear conflict between the domestic firearms policy and your resolution. That's a clear contradiction of GA#399.

"You're trying to carve an exception by saying GA#399 only applies to regulations on non-state actors, but I'm pointing out that any reasonable nation would have domestic policies applying to state actors as well, and that's where the conflict ensues."