NationStates Jolt Archive

Esteemed national representatives,

We present to you the The Allied States of Pturbu's draft proposal, the Illegal Weapons Amnesty Act, for review and comment. This draft, while framed by Politanian legislators, has been shaped by input from a number of UN member states; we owe the contributors an enormous debt of gratitude.

The text (containing changes proposed in following posts):

Illegal Weapons Amnesty Act
A resolution to tighten or relax gun control laws.
Category: International Security

Description: RECOGNIZING the danger of terrorists (or other malignant, independent organizations) obtaining and using illegal weapons,

NOTING the responsibility of nations to monitor and manage their illegal weapons,

DEFINING illegal weapons as any weapons that may not be possessed under current law,

1. AFFIRMS the right of nations to make any weapons they want legal or illegal as long as it does not conflict with international law.

2. PROCLAIMS that any weapons delivered to a UN building and/or any other building designated by the state shall be destroyed by the UN and no further punishment or investigation will be carried out as a result.

3. STATES that this shall not apply to weapons involved in ongoing or seperately instigated trials or investigations.

4. CALLS UPON nations to allow any individual or group to deliver weapons easily and without fear of reprisal.

5. DECLARES that this amnesty shall last as long as this document remains enshrined as UN law and shall be enforced by all member nations.

Although I am sure our UN delegate would be happy to submit the proposal, I would support anyone submitting the proposal.

Respectfully,

Reginal Protentiate
Pturbuian Ambassador to the UN

Lester Cromwell
Former Politanian Prime Minister and Original Author of the Proposal

PS: I would also like to give credit to Ecopoeia's Speaker to the UN,
Varia Yefremova, from who much of the format of this letter was borrowed.

Hmmmm. A proposal I am seriously considering adding my support to.

That's...rare.

also i support this! im up for a totaly ban of wepons but inprectice that would be imposiable and not a very good ideia, as attack means ud be unprotected! but what you have here sounds good to me!!

As it deals with nations rather than individuals - I believe that would be Global Disarmament.......

As it deals with nations rather than individuals - I believe that would be Global Disarmament.......

Probably, but I actually like the text, so it dazzled me for a moment. I'm not exactly accustomed to liking proposal texts. :)

I've got two problems with this.

First off, clause 2 seems to me to be a way for criminals to dispose of weapons used during a crime.

Secondly, clause 5 might b render this proposal illegal as it could be interpereted as saying this resolution can't be repealed.

RECOGNIZING the danger of terrorists (or other malignant, independent organizations) obtaining and using illegal weapons

Hm, "malignant, indpendent organizations"? That sounds strangely familiar (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7161716&postcount=76) :D

Clause 2 I think can be fixed by making it an Internation Security category resolution - because then this applies to nations, not citizens.

Caluse 5....cheezy possible rewording:
"This Amnesty shall last as long as this document is enshrined in the halls of the United Nations as law"

Clause 2 I think can be fixed by making it an Internation Security category resolution - because then this applies to nations, not citizens.

Caluse 5....cheezy possible rewording:
"This Amnesty shall last as long as this document is enshrined in the halls of the United Nations as law"

Yeah, I termed "The Nuclear Terrorism Act" an International Security proposal because it was claiming to protect against terrorists--not restrict weapons. This, too, is on the platform of security against criminals or such, not the inherent evilness in certain weapons. I think it should be an 'IS' proposal.

Esteemed National Representatives,

Thank you for your helpful responses. I beleive I have addressed the points made by respondants although I do not understand the point regarding Clause 2.

The Gentleman from Flibbleites said that clause 2 seems to him to be a way for criminals to dispose of weapons used during a crime. However, Clause 2 states that, "no further punishment or investigation will be carried out as a result." That is, any punishment or investigation that would've been carried out anyway may be carried out. And of course, Clause 3 tries to insure against that exact event by saying that weapons from ongoing investigations and trials will not fall under Clause 2. That is, any weapons delivered in this way will not, in and of themselves, result in any punishment or investigation.

The Gentleman from Forgottenlands said that the proposal deals with nations rather than individuals and that he believes that it would properly fall under Global Disarmament. However, this bill should not change military spending. It just gives those who possess or come into possession of illegal weapons a method of safely disposing of them, no questions asked. I actually thought it dealt with extra-national groups and organizations and even individuals more than nations.

The Gentleman from Powerhungry Chipmunks accused me of plagiarising off of his passed bill. How dare he make such horrible and false accusations. Perhaps I might've been inspired by his great words. If he would like, I can give him restitution in the form of the honored right of submitting the proposal? I would renounce all claims on the text to him to do with as he pleases for as long as he would wish. He may credit me or not, as he pleases.

Signed,

Your Humble Servant
Reginal Protentiate
Pturbuian Ambassador to the UN

P.S. The following is a letter I received from my friend, Lester Cromwell former Prime Minister of Politania that he asked me to forward to you.

Dear Delegates,

After reading your responses to the text, I felt a need to personally take the time to thank you for your helpfulness and beg that you continue to help the Gentleman from Pturbu in his efforts. However, after reading your responses and reconsidering the bill, I have realized that it will have very minor impact. I do not understand why any nation, individual, or organisation would give up illegal weapons currently in it's possession unless it was under investigation in which case it would not be able to under Clause 3, which Mr. Protentiate added. Although it seems like it would be a relatively innocuous and uncontroversial bill and could pass, I do not see a good reason to support it in it's current form. If you disagree with me, please reply and I will consider your reasoning and perhaps assist in the passage of this bill.

Lester Cromwell

So... Generally speaking and for example:

The Cult of the Holy Chicken uses a new bioweapon on a state processing farm. Lots of deaths result. Then, as my State Security forces are about to close in on their HQ, they deliver the rest of the stockpile to the UN.

Now, if I'm understand this right, that one act would nullify any charges my Prosecutors could dream up against them, correct?

as I read it, provided your government had began it's investigation before trying to arrest those involved, the UN would be obligated to keep the weapon until your government had fininished with the perpetratiors.

Esteemed National Representatives,

Thank you for your helpful responses. I beleive I have addressed the points made by respondants although I do not understand the point regarding Clause 2.

The Gentleman from Flibbleites said that clause 2 seems to him to be a way for criminals to dispose of weapons used during a crime. However, Clause 2 states that, "no further punishment or investigation will be carried out as a result." That is, any punishment or investigation that would've been carried out anyway may be carried out. And of course, Clause 3 tries to insure against that exact event by saying that weapons from ongoing investigations and trials will not fall under Clause 2. That is, any weapons delivered in this way will not, in and of themselves, result in any punishment or investigation.Well, perhaps I can explain it a little better.

A man breaks into a house and shoots the little old lady living there killing her. Now, that gun is the only thing tieing him into her murder. Before the police even know that she has been killed, the criminal takes the murder weapon and has it destroyed, since there is no ongoing investigation at that time clause 3 doesn't apply. And since the murder weapon has been destroyed the criminal could get away with the murder as the police would be unable to find the murder weapon.

The Gentleman from Powerhungry Chipmunks accused me of plagiarising off of his passed bill.
Naw, I was just noting the similarities. Similarities between two artifacts of similar type (such as, in the US, similarities between two State of the Union, or Inaugural speeches) is to be expected. The two proposals encompass essentially the same situation ("there's a weapon situation--nuclear/illegal weapons--in UN countries which needs to be controlled in order to combat terrorism") so it's understandable that they use some similar terminology--even up to fundamentally identical first two clauses ;)

If he would like, I can give him restitution in the form of the honored right of submitting the proposal? I would renounce all claims on the text to him to do with as he pleases for as long as he would wish. He may credit me or not, as he pleases.

I'm not interested in submitting any resolutions of that sort right now (my plate is already full), and no "restitution" is necessary. I'm sorry you felt I was accusing you of plagiarism. I thought the :D smiley would have given away my non-confrontational thoughts on the whole situation. It's your deal, similar to mine or not. And in it I wish you Good Luck!

The Gentleman from Forgottenlands said that the proposal deals with nations rather than individuals and that he believes that it would properly fall under Global Disarmament. However, this bill should not change military spending. It just gives those who possess or come into possession of illegal weapons a method of safely disposing of them, no questions asked. I actually thought it dealt with extra-national groups and organizations and even individuals more than nations.

Lester Cromwell

I suppose I should ask - do you intend this bill to be applied to ANYONE (both civilians and nations) or do you feel it is so that nations have an easier way to dispose of chemical and biological weapons.

I also should note that in the case of both civilian and national considerations, it is not true that those would be the only times that they would submit their weapons. It also allows for the displosal of such weapons for nations if:
A) the weapon was achieved through trade and the nation does not have the technology to safely dispose of it
B) the nation is under careful scrutiny and needs to prove to the International Community that it has successfully destroyed its entire stockpile (for whatever reason)
C) the nation feels a weapon is outdated and must be disposed of in a safe manner
D) a new resolution has been passed in the UN
E) a nation joins the UN and must take into consideration previous bans

For individuals:
A) inheritance of a weapon from another individual that is illegal within his nation
B) a new law is passed that the resident must abide to and must therefore hand in his weapon
C) a resident is informed (perhaps because he was recently fined for possession) that he possesses an illegal weapon but was not aware it was illegal.

Hmmmm. A proposal I am seriously considering adding my support to.

That's...rare.

Hmm...Me too. Very rare indeed. The delegate from Darkumbria salutes the Forgottenlands for its proposal. Moreover, I support this as it has effects reaching to the limits of the stars.


OOC: Well done!!! Finally, someone else who understands HOW to get a proposal in that speaks to the international community. I had almost thought this type of thought dead to this community. :)

Hmm...Me too. Very rare indeed. The delegate from Darkumbria salutes the Forgottenlands for its proposal. Moreover, I support this as it has effects reaching to the limits of the stars.


OOC: Well done!!! Finally, someone else who understands HOW to get a proposal in that speaks to the international community. I had almost thought this type of thought dead to this community. :)

I'm afraid you are mistaken. The Empire of Forgottenlands is not responsible for this proposal, it is just merely issuing its viewpoint of why this proposal is good and ways that it could be improved.

The Prutubian (did I get that right?) ambassador is the submitter of this proposal.

Doh!!!!!!!!!!

My apologies to the delegate from Pturbu. And my thanks to the Forgottenlands for the correction.

PROCLAIMS that any weapons delivered to a UN building ..."Delivered to..."? I don't like the sound of that.

"Incoming!!!!"

How about "presented to" or "surrendered to" UN officials or officials of a Member nation?

I like the Idea of leading all nation to produced any kind of weapons but how do we know the dictators will not use the weapons to none UN nations?

"Delivered to..."? I don't like the sound of that.

"Incoming!!!!"

How about "presented to" or "surrendered to" UN officials or officials of a Member nation?

Ironically, that system of delivery is also our standard weapons disposal method, except we deliver the weapons to the one who proposed the ban.

Fellow UN Nations,

I thank you for your support and recommendations. The proposal has now been submitted for your consideration and I hope that it gets your approval.

Signed,

Lian Questermyer
President of Jongolia
Head of the Pturbuian Aliance

P.S. I will soon be appointing a Delegate to replace Mr. Protentiate, our ambassador, as representative to the UN as we now represent all of the Lands of Forumsx.

As recent events have found such illegal weapons being used by rebel forces currently actively moving against the Garne Government we would support more harsh actions to recover these and destroy them. However we realize that this will not happen as long as the nations producing such weapons are outside the laws of the UN and society itself. The only way to declaw a rat is to hunt them down and dig them out of their nests and do it. We talk about action to promote peace and keep arming ourselves with massive weapons, capible of not only destroying any enemy but falling back and killing our own people. With regret I for my people will support this but ask we look at other matters to stop the senses killing of the common people who only want a safe world to live in...Zarta of the Garne :p