NationStates Jolt Archive

I apologize for taking so long to flesh out these clauses-in-embryo. I’ve been tied up these past weeks. But, here is the discussion continuation. I tried to incorporate everything from the last discussion. There may be things someone mentioned as to either including or not including which I may have forgotten.

Previous discussion: Gun Amnesty Discussion (Future Proposal) (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=409795&page=1&pp=15)

Current ideas for active clauses:

1) Member nations with firearm control laws, which make it illegal for citizens to possess certain types of firearms, must create or set aside at least one firearm amnesty within their borders.

2) Firearm amnesties in member states are set aside for the turning in of illegal firearms by citizens. Firearm amnesties may also be used for the turning in of guns which are not illegal by citizens of member nations as well as the turning in of other weapons, projectile or otherwise.

[Shouldn’t I use a better term than “turning in”?]

3) Member nations are disallowed from using evidence acquired through a citizen’s use of a firearm amnesty as well as evidence acquired through an investigation resulting from the use of a firearm amnesty, in the prosecution of citizens by member governments for carrying illegal firearms.

[Should it specifically state that evidence from amnesties is allowed to be used in crimes other than illegal firearm possession?]

4) Firearms may undergo ballistics or other forensic testing, and be held exempt from firearm destruction for an indefinite amount of time for investigative purposes as member nations see fit. During which exemption period member nations may not use, sell, or distribute said firearms.

4a) Firearms may also be withheld from destruction for historical, scientific, or cultural value, as decided individually by member nations.

5) Firearms that are not implicated in a crime or being exempted for investigation or being withheld for historical purposes must be destroyed by member nations. Member nations are encouraged to recycle materials from firearms so as to limit the cost of such destruction to member governments.

6) Specifications of firearm amnesty security, facility design, location, possible incentives for turning in weapons, and times of operation are at the discretion of member nations except for the following stipulation:

6a) firearm amnesties must be open for a 24 hour period at least once a year.

7) Regional firearm destruction facilities, to be utilized for illegal weapons caught in transit, are strongly encouraged.

8) Regional databases of forensic firearm evidence, to limit abuse of amnesties in neighboring member nations, are also strongly encouraged.

Any new or old (that I’ve forgotten to include) suggestions?

looking good, PC. just a few comments:
1) Member nations with firearm control laws, which make it illegal for citizens to possess certain types of firearms, must create or set aside at least one firearm amnesty within their borders.
should make reference that nations that dont have control laws may set up one to allow safe disposal of unwanted firearms and amunition
3) Member nations are disallowed from using evidence acquired through a citizen’s use of a firearm amnesty as well as evidence acquired through an investigation resulting from the use of a firearm amnesty, in the prosecution of citizens by member governments for carrying illegal firearms.

[Should it specifically state that evidence from amnesties is allowed to be used in crimes other than illegal firearm possession?]

yes. thus, someone cant discharge the firearm for illegal purposes, then hand it into an amnesty to destroy the evedence.

also, there should be included a 'one-time only' clause for illegal firearms, meaning that those possesing illegal firearms can only hand them in once. if they hand in firearms after that, they have to be of the legal kind, unless it is directly after the initial hand over. eg: they have to go home to get the rest cause they all wouldnt fit in the car.

yes. thus, someone cant discharge the firearm for illegal purposes, then hand it into an amnesty to destroy the evedence.

We disagree, Amnesties are for all weopens, other wise whats the Point? There would still be Illegal guns out there.

should make reference that nations that dont have control laws may set up one to allow safe disposal of unwanted firearms and amunition

yes. thus, someone cant discharge the firearm for illegal purposes, then hand it into an amnesty to destroy the evedence.

Okay, I'll include that clarification and encouragement in the next draft (which may actually be a technical, UN-worded draft). If I forget about it by then, feel free to remind me.

also, there should be included a 'one-time only' clause for illegal firearms, meaning that those possesing illegal firearms can only hand them in once. if they hand in firearms after that, they have to be of the legal kind, unless it is directly after the initial hand over. eg: they have to go home to get the rest cause they all wouldnt fit in the car.

Well...I'm not sure that's a stipulation that we need to dictate throughout the whole UN. How these things are run I'm trying to leave up to individual nations, so rules like that--or any other means to stop abuse--I'd like to keep as the member nations' decisions. I can see the logic behind it, but I also think it's reasonable that a member nations may be fine without that specific of a stipulation. I agree that a clause like that could slow or prevent certain abuses of the amnesty.

If you still think it should be put in, just explain why it's universal enough of an abuse point that we should take care of it on a UN level--as that's the point I'm not sure on, and thus doubting whether it should be included.

Pretty good. I would say that clause 3 should specifically say that other crimes may be investigated.

6a) firearm amnesties must be open for a 24 hour period at least once a year.


so, how about 24 1-hour periods? There's a word that should be here ("continuous" isn't quite it).

We also posit - a firearms collection is stolen. Weapons from it are turned in during this period. According to the document written, they must then be destroyed?

We disagree, Amnesties are for all weopens, other wise whats the Point? There would still be Illegal guns out there.
i believe you mis-interperated what we were refering to.
Should it specifically state that evidence from amnesties is allowed to be used in crimes other than illegal firearm possession?]
we were replying to this quote. what we were meaning is that amnesties cant be used by crimminals that have illegaly discharged a firearm, eg: murder, shootings (ie botched robbery), to drop off the gun and it be destroyed, covering their crime. maybe a mandatory holding period should be in place so police can check to see the weapon hasnt been used in a crime before it was handed in, before the weapon can be destroyed.

No i got your point exactly! And my point is that the idea of an amnesty is to remove all Illegal guns Not just the ones on grandpas shelf. otherwise if those used in crime are not removed, then you have all those loverly guns that criminals have still out there.

3) Member nations are disallowed from using evidence acquired through a citizen’s use of a firearm amnesty as well as evidence acquired through an investigation resulting from the use of a firearm amnesty, in the prosecution of citizens by member governments for carrying illegal firearms.

[Should it specifically state that evidence from amnesties is allowed to be used in crimes other than illegal firearm possession?]

4) Firearms may undergo ballistics or other forensic testing, and be held exempt from firearm destruction for an indefinite amount of time for investigative purposes as member nations see fit. During which exemption period member nations may not use, sell, or distribute said firearms.

Unless I understand clause 3 wrong (which is possible). If a gun is found and it is found out to be have been used in a murder I cant question the person who handed the gun in/use the gun as evidence in the murder case?
As it seem to clash with clause 4.

I have no problem with allowing an amnesty on illegal possesion, but to allow criminals to hand in their weapons without having any fear of prosecution is something I dont approve.
I can understand that if a nation is toughening up on the penalties of illegal possesion it would do something like this or if there are alot of illegal guns in the country, but that doesnt mean you have to force this on every UN nation and if I understand it correctly where the amnesty can be used to dump a gun used in a criminal act.

Unless I understand clause 3 wrong (which is possible). If a gun is found and it is found out to be have been used in a murder I cant question the person who handed the gun in/use the gun as evidence in the murder case?
As it seem to clash with clause 4.


No, that wasn't what I wanted to say. I'll look into the exact phrasing I included in #3 to see if I made a mistake there, but my intent was to only extend immunity from prosecutions regarding illegal firearm possession. It's a clause that might need to be looked into anyway (to see if it needs to be as far-reaching), and I'm definitely going to clarify .


so, how about 24 1-hour periods? There's a word that should be here ("continuous" isn't quite it).

Hmm...I think that's a good idea. Under the current wording it isn't really clear whether sub-division of the 24 hour period is allowed or isn't allowed. I think division into, at shortest, 1 hour periods is reasonable, enough for people to adequately use the amnesty. I'll specify that in the next draft.


We also posit - a firearms collection is stolen. Weapons from it are turned in during this period. According to the document written, they must then be destroyed?

No. Well, until I review the wording more carefully to make sure I didn't write that in accidentally, I can't say for sure. But no, that was not my intent. In the end, when I get the phrases I want in there, the proposal should afford nations the flexibility to use guns turned in to the amnesty for just about anything (investigation, prosecution, museum display, etc.) except for the prosecution of citizens for illegal firearms possession or the actual use of the firearm (as in bang-bang) by the nation's government.

I figured I'd bump this discussion thread until the weekend to see if there's any more input before I put up some actual proposal language.

No i got your point exactly! And my point is that the idea of an amnesty is to remove all Illegal guns Not just the ones on grandpas shelf. otherwise if those used in crime are not removed, then you have all those loverly guns that criminals have still out there.
what we meant was that they are to be held for a certain period of time, say 30 days, to make sure they were not discharged for illegal purposes, regardless if the gun is or isnt illegal. if they are found to be clean, they get destroyed. if they were used illegally, they should be destroyed after being used as evidence. it is one thing to hand in an illegal weapon. it is another to use that weapon for illegal purposes, then hand it in to be destroyed at an amnesty, thus destroying evidence of their crime

what we meant was that they are to be held for a certain period of time, say 30 days, to make sure they were not discharged for illegal purposes, regardless if the gun is or isnt illegal. if they are found to be clean, they get destroyed. if they were used illegally, they should be destroyed after being used as evidence. it is one thing to hand in an illegal weapon. it is another to use that weapon for illegal purposes, then hand it in to be destroyed at an amnesty, thus destroying evidence of their crime

"We found your stolen gun, it was turned in during Amnesty. Unfortunately, we had to destroy it...."

See the problem here???

"We found your stolen gun, it was turned in during Amnesty. Unfortunately, we had to destroy it...."

See the problem here???
also, someone murders someone, then hands the gun in to the amnesty.... evidence gets destroyed, killer gets let off due to lack of muder weapon, proof that they did it.

If a firearm is handed in anonymously and then is discovered to have been used in a crime, how will the police prosecute the criminal?

And, if the amnesty isn't anonymous, who would risk handing the gun in (and be branded on the police records as an illegal gun owner) instead of, for instance, throwing the gun into a river?

To be effective, the amnesty would have to be anonymous, and accept that some people will use it to hide evidence. But, if a criminal commits a robbery or a murder with a gun, and then hands it in, he doesn't have that gun any more so he won't be able to commit a similar crime.

I'm not sure this proposal could work on an international basis, to be honest. (OOC)When the UK introduced a gun amnesty, I think it was for a limited time (a few weeks), and when it was over the police cracked down hard on illegal firearm owners. A continuous amnesty - from a criminal's perspective, he may as well bury the gun in a box.

If a firearm is handed in anonymously and then is discovered to have been used in a crime, how will the police prosecute the criminal?

And, if the amnesty isn't anonymous, who would risk handing the gun in (and be branded on the police records as an illegal gun owner) instead of, for instance, throwing the gun into a river?

To be effective, the amnesty would have to be anonymous, and accept that some people will use it to hide evidence. But, if a criminal commits a robbery or a murder with a gun, and then hands it in, he doesn't have that gun any more so he won't be able to commit a similar crime.

I'm not sure this proposal could work on an international basis, to be honest. (OOC)When the UK introduced a gun amnesty, I think it was for a limited time (a few weeks), and when it was over the police cracked down hard on illegal firearm owners. A continuous amnesty - from a criminal's perspective, he may as well bury the gun in a box.

I don't know the answers to your two questions, but I think that leaving them up to individual member nations, what I've tried to do here, is the best thing to do. I mean, I can think of things my government will do against guns being turned in to hide evidence, but I know other nations will have other good ideas, too, and I don't want to preclude those. With the mentioning of the UK amnesty, I do think that maybe I should lessen up the 24 hour period per year requirement, maybe expanding it to two or three years. That way, national governments have more freedom to crack down on gun possession.

also, someone murders someone, then hands the gun in to the amnesty.... evidence gets destroyed, killer gets let off due to lack of muder weapon, proof that they did it.

I tried to anticipate that by allowing member nations to keep hold of firearms as evidence for as long as was needed--even without anything specifically tying the guns to a crime (basically at the nation's discretion). Keeping criminals from abusing the amnesty is the national government's realm. I can't anticipate all the ways criminals will try to get around it or take advantage of the amnesty now or in the future and I don't want to constrict national governments from forming their own solutions to these possible--and rapidly developing--problems.

Are we allowed to make resolutions that are optional? I thought that was illegal. If the resolution is to apply when the members want to apply it, then it's a guideline rather than a law.

Have you thought about the category and strength the resolution will go under?

Are we allowed to make resolutions that are optional? I thought that was illegal. If the resolution is to apply when the members want to apply it, then it's a guideline rather than a law.

Portions of proposals are allowed to be optional. I already require certain things of member nations: that they build the amnesty, that it's for x purpose, that they have to have it operational so often, etc. Allowing individual nations to set the specific procedures and protocols for their amnesties isn't a problem as it's just a portion of the proposal.


Have you thought about the category and strength the resolution will go under?

No, that's been kind of put on hold until actual language is developed. There is a strong argument for bun control or whatever it's called, but I personally wouldn't like to tread on those waters. If it were worked into, somehow, helping disadvantaged people who acquire illegal guns and want a "second chance" or are innocent of real wrongdoing, then maybe there'd be a case for Social Justice or Human Rights. There are other ideas that have been put forward, but I want to wait until after forumlating a draft or two before really giving it thought.

If a firearm is handed in anonymously and then is discovered to have been used in a crime, how will the police prosecute the criminal?

And, if the amnesty isn't anonymous, who would risk handing the gun in (and be branded on the police records as an illegal gun owner) instead of, for instance, throwing the gun into a river?

To be effective, the amnesty would have to be anonymous, and accept that some people will use it to hide evidence.
If someone dumps the gun in the river and the police finds it, they wont know who dumped it there anyway. So it really isnt that bad that the gun amnesty is anonymous, as it doesnt improve the chance for criminals to hide the evidence (as long as the police check first wether it is used in a crime).

If someone dumps the gun in the river and the police finds it, they wont know who dumped it there anyway. So it really isnt that bad that the gun amnesty is anonymous, as it doesnt improve the chance for criminals to hide the evidence (as long as the police check first wether it is used in a crime).

Hmm? I don't follow you.

If I had an illegal gun and I shot someone, the police could link my gun to the victim. So, why would I go to the police station, where they would take the gun, realise that I must have used it to shoot the dead guy, and then come to arrest me? I wouldn't do that. I'd go somewhere remote, and bury the gun. Or I would carefully clean the gun and discard it in an alleyway somewhere. Or I would throw it into a harbour. A criminal wouldn't hand in a gun that's been used in a crime.

On the other hand, if I was an innocent criminal with an illegal gun, which I hadn't shot anyone with, I could hand it in and know it wasn't used in crime, and know that if I was found with it then I would be very very arrested. But hiding the gun somewhere safe where I could get it again later would still be preferable to losing it completely...

I apologize for not getting back to this last weekend or the weekend before as I originally figured I would. As a warning, I may not draft wording for the proposal until this weekend or later next week as I'm going to be kept busy arguing for my repeal.

Still, the discussion is open to any who want to add thoughts.