NationStates Jolt Archive

Her Majesty's Government of The Kingdom of Commonwealth Nations (Protector of Rule Britannica) proposes a State Gun Control Act after its Prime Minister, Lord Scotland was murdered by a diplomat from the Wolfish Government at the Demak Talks.

Her Majesty's Governments' proposal aims to achieve two main goals:

1) to restrict UN Member States in their freedom to arm diplomats,Government delegates and Security staff with weaponary

AND

2) to force UN Member States to pursue a Universal Arms Security Check AND/OR Universal Security Clearance for all persons under their jurisdiction.

These two 'goals' are only applicable when two OR more UN Member States enter into negotiations or talks regarding any subject which may call the need for such meetings. Therefore, The State Gun Control Act wishes to limit the control of a UN Member States' power to arm its members when in official dialogue with other nations.

Clarification of these 'goals' are to be found under Clause 001 & Clause 002 of the State Gun Control Act.

CLAUSE 001 'The Restriction in Arming Diplomats,Government Delegates and Security Staff'

At a time when UN Member States need to resolve disputes, or simply be involved in dialogue on a number of issues, all sides must be able to do so in the confidence that:
00.1 - no disputes will result in armed conflict between:
00.101 - members of a Government
00.102 - members of a Governments' delegation, such as
Civil Servants,
00.103 - members of a Governments' Security Service

To ensure the existence of this 'confidence', UN Member States must make sure that:
00.2 - no weaponary of any kind is in the pocession of either:
00.201 - members of a Government present at talks*
00.202 - members of a Governments' delegation, such as
Civil Servants, who are present at talks*
00.203 - members of a Governments' Security Service pr-
sent at talks*
N.B. *'present at talks' means those who are present in 'the room' where discussions are taking place between Nation States. It DOES NOT mean those who are in charge of security arrangements outside of 'the room', and therefore are EXEMPT from this Resolution. This exemption would apply to security guards outside a building, on the ground, air and sea. This list is NOT exhuastive.

CLAUSE 002 - 'The Universal Arms & Security Clearance Check

In order to implement CLAUSE 001 sucessfully, Nation States must carry out a 'Universal Arms Security Check' AND/OR 'Universal Security Clearance Check'.
A 'Universal Arms Security Check MUST be made for those who:

00.21 - are members of a Government present at talks*
00.22 - are members of a Governments' delegation, such as
Civil Servants, who are present at talks*
00.23 - are members of a Governments' Security Service pr-
sent at talks*
*Please refer to CLAUSE 001 for clarification

A 'Universal Security Clearance Check' MUST be made for everyone else who attends a meeting regardless of role in such meetings/talks. This can include, but not limited to:

-security staff protecting a building from the outside
-administrative staff working in offices in the vicinity* of talks
-Clerical staff working in the vicinity* of the talks

*in this case, those working in the vicinity are those who work in the venue of the talks, but are not in the same room where the talks are taking place.

In both the cases of the 'Universal Arms Security Check' and the 'Universal Security Clearance Check', UN Member States will be required to:

00.30 - make an application for the correct security check
for every person they have jurisdiction over at
the talks.
00.31 - on completion of the security check, provide those
persons with the correct certificate which confirms:

00.310 - the relevant security clearance has been
given
00.311 - and consequently, that person is allowed
to enter ONLY those rooms the certificate
entitles them.

All applications for the either Security Checks MUST be made via the United Nations only, who will provide a universal certificate for all UN Member States.

NO OTHER SECURITY CHECK will be allowed.

Her Majesty's Government of The Kingdom of Commonwealth Nations ( Protector of Rule Britannica) hopes that this Resolution will allow security to be strong on the exterior of any Inter-Governmental meeting, and safety to be strong on the interior.
Her Majesty's Government welcomes any suggestions from other nations in order to prevent the horrific murder of a Prime Minister or any other person at a Inter-Governmental meeting such as The Kingdom of The Commonwealth Nations and its protectorate has had to face.

The DRA will support this proposal

This proposal is worded in such a way as to extend past the UN's own authority..... I would recommend the alteration of the term "Nation State(s)" to read "UN member states" or something to that effect.

You must understand, this United Nations does not have absolute international authority... it only has authority of those who are members.

let countrys decide for themselves!! we dont support your proposal.

Looks like an excellent idea. I'd personally go with a different title though, lol.

Setting up rules to ensure the security of diplomats is exactly the sort of thing the UN should be dealing with. :mp5: And this proposal is very well thought-out and well written. You've got my endorsement.

Her Majesty's Government would like to remind you all the importance of this Act. Our Prime Minister was murdered by a Diplomat from the Wolfish Government. If a UN Resolution such as this had been in place, our Prime Minister would still be alive. That is why Her Majesty's Government urges the international community to support what is a sensible UN Resolution Proposal.

Her Majesty's Foreign Secretary
The Kingdom of Commonwealth Nations (Protector of Rule Britannica)

We haven't read through your proposal, but we like the name so what the hell -- we'll support it.

- John Hunt, Minister of Foreign Affairs

This won't work. While you can stop diplomats carrying guns, and the people who work in the building from carrying guns, how would you ever stop a whole nation? Would you shut down the entire area the talks are being held in? If the hotel the diplomats are in is two miles from the conference center, would you search everyone who lives in those two miles?

Secondly if you are going to let people keep guns who are "outside of the room" then what is to stop one of them bursting in and killing someone? Either you ban all guns or you find a different way of doing it.

The Council of Enn is unsure how such a plan would work in reality.
But we do like the idea. It's not as if we need anything as clumsy as a firearm to deal with our political enemies.

If a UN Resolution such as this had been in place, our Prime Minister would still be alive.

Or, if you had made a prior agreement that no one would have guns in the room.

I don't object to the proposal beyond that I find it unnecessary. Let me point out that you didn't need a resolution and don't need a resolution to ensure the safety of your government officials. To put it frankly, you should've thought of that before the meeting. Put a metal detector at the door, whatever. I don't think it would be that hard for both parties at talks to agree on something as simple as "no guns in the room". But, like, whatever dude.

I think this is a great idea which should have been made into a resolution a long time ago, so the Empire of Great Britain-- will support this proposal.


Prime Minister of Great Britain--

The nation of Durdani supports this proposal. Diplomats should be protected.

The nation of Durdani supports this proposal. Diplomats should be protected.

Why? What makes them more important than anyone else who works for the government?

Or anyone else?

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

While this does make sense, I am going to have to oppose it on two basic objections.

1) Universal security clearence - the suitability of my people to act as security staff to my diplomats should not be under the authority of anyone else. I trust they will protect their charges to the best of their ability - that's all I am concerned about.

2) To get round this proposal I would only need to invite a non-UN member state to the talks as well. Then - because there are people who are not covered by the rules, I would be fully justified in arming everybody and could then shoot whomever I chose.

So - yeah - I oppose it.

The resolution is obviously not going to stop all possibilty of the slaying of diplomats. Thats not the point. Its to add UN backing and automatic condemnation of nations who play dirty tricks like that.

Her Majesty's Government thanks you all for your comments. For those nations who oppose this proposal, Her Majesty's Government asks you kindly to, if you so wish, to add to the proposal. Where there are 'loopholes' etc, Her Majesty's Government asks you to contact us, so we can amend the proposal.
After the murder of our Prime Minister, we realise that leaders and Governments of ALL NATIONS must be protected from acts of terror such as this. That is why we ask for your support.

Her Majesty's Foreign Secretary
The Kingdom of Commonwealth Nations (Protector of Rule Britannica)

[FONT=Book Antiqua]...For those nations who oppose this proposal, Her Majesty's Government asks you kindly to, if you so wish, to add to the proposal. Where there are 'loopholes' etc...
Yes but you can't stop the non-UN nations. Ever. At all. So you really can't guaranty the safety of UN members. It's a loop hole that can't be filled in.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Her Majesty's Government thanks you all for your comments. For those nations who oppose this proposal, Her Majesty's Government asks you kindly to, if you so wish, to add to the proposal. Where there are 'loopholes' etc, Her Majesty's Government asks you to contact us, so we can amend the proposal.
After the murder of our Prime Minister, we realise that leaders and Governments of ALL NATIONS must be protected from acts of terror such as this. That is why we ask for your support.

Her Majesty's Foreign Secretary
The Kingdom of Commonwealth Nations (Protector of Rule Britannica)


For the love of the Lords. Why does every single person bring terrorism in to every single proposal recently? Is it so that no one can oppose it without looking like they are supporting terrorists? So that everyone will come to your side at once, despite the fact that this death could have been prevented with a little common sense and - you know - metal detectors?

After the murder of our Prime Minister, we realise that leaders and Governments of ALL NATIONS must be protected from acts of terror such as this.

Can't happen. Any UN Proposal that attempts to force the UN's will on non-member nations is deleted.

Whilst in principal I agree with the intent of the proposal, I feel the most simplistic way forward would be to simply ban all weapons from the UN building. There really is no need for weapons here. If unfortunately acts of violence happen outside of the building, there is little the UN as a body can do. From where I sit that immediately becomes a criminal/diplomatic matter for the nations involved. Certainly for myself and I am sure many other representatives here, we accept the risks that come with the job when we sign up. Fortunately my government understands the risks sometimes involved and adequate security is provided when and where necessary.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Haiti believes in the doctrine of "AK-47s for everyone!", extremist suicide bombers included.

Anglevia will support this proposal.