NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello my fellow NS United Nations Delegates,

I would like to invite you to lend support for a new Proposal, in the interest of improving Human Rights among the various NSUN NationStates.

The Castle Doctrine:

Description: The Free land of Liberty United, does hereby submit to the NS United Nations the following:

NOTING that all persons should be secure and safe within the boundaries of their own home property; be it owned, rented, leased, or borrowed, do recommend the following:

ALL NationStates recognize that all citizens, subjects, slaves, and even opressed peoples, are deserving of the basic human right of self defense from those that would do them harm.

WHERE it is understood that NO ONE should be forced to abandon their "Castle" to the invasion by anyone else wishing to either do physical or mental harm, or simply to attempt to deprive one of their property.

AWARE that many NationStates do not allow for ownership of firearms for personal defense, and often force a victim to flee from an attacker/intruder regardless of circumstances.

RESOLVE to make standard with all NSUN NationStates:

1) That no person be required to flee their own domain in the face of attack.

2) That no NationState will charge criminal acts against any person who defends themselves within their property, instead of fleeing.

3) That regardless of weapons laws within member NationStates, that all persons have the right to use whatever means necessary with tools at hand, to defend themselves while within the boundaries of their home.

4) That in being secure in one's property, does include the right to protect said property and all belongings contained within.


I believe that we all should be able to exist in our lives without the fear of being punished for protecting ourselves, and our loved ones, within the sanctity of our homes.

Thank you for your time, and hopefully your support.

Kalixt Shawxo,
Ambassador Emeritus of Liberty United.
Delegate for the Region of N Ireland.

Madness. Leave this to individual nations to decide - were land not already held in common in Ecopoeia, we would have no wish to allow homeowners unlimited powers of defence with no fear of reprisal.

Lata Chakrabarti
Speaker to the UN

1. This is illegal as it stands: check the rules on branding (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465).
2. Seems like there might be some overlap with Right to Self-Protection (http://nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=93).

Also, what happens when an officer of the law comes by to apprehend the man for some crime? Can he defend himself in this case?

Hello my fellow NS United Nations Delegates,

Hello. Thank you for bringing this to our attention; it is always good when someone brings a draft to the attention of others for constructive criticism first. And as I see that you are fairly new as well, let me give you a hearty welcome. (We are rather new to this as well.)

With that said, I must also echo much of what has been expressed before. What worries me most is that members of the police and armed forces may be attacked with impunity under this, even when exercising their duly appointed powers.

If you add a clause expressly exempting police and military, and remove the branding problem...you might have a shot.

I think that if you protect all law and peaceful forces from this, it's ok. But don't protct door-to-door salesmen. We should batter them to death with pink teddy bears.

As this stands, clause 3 seems an unacceptable circumvention of the nationstate's right to ban weaponry.

Also I believe that this should be a right of ownership, not of tenancy.

As this stands, clause 3 seems an unacceptable circumvention of the nationstate's right to ban weaponry.

Also I believe that this should be a right of ownership, not of tenancy.
OOC: Loughborough? Now there's a place I haven't been to in a while...

As this stands, clause 3 seems an unacceptable circumvention of the nationstate's right to ban weaponry.

Also I believe that this should be a right of ownership, not of tenancy.

I understood it to mean that if guns and knives were banned in your nation, you had the right to pick up a hammer/broom/fork/feather to do it with instead.

But I can appreciate your reading. Hou Mian has very mixed gun control laws, but the Khaghan is leery of allowing guns into the hands of the populace.

I understood it to mean that if guns and knives were banned in your nation, you had the right to pick up a hammer/broom/fork/feather to do it with instead.

But I can appreciate your reading. Hou Mian has very mixed gun control laws, but the Khaghan is leery of allowing guns into the hands of the populace.

Es, that was the intent, to allow for weapons at hand...not necessarily that existing weapons laws for each Nationstate be violated.

But, the point is moot, alas I did not (nor do I yet) fully understand this "branding" for which my proposal was deleted.

Respectfully,

Kalixt Shawxo,
Ambassador Emeritus of Liberty United

Es, that was the intent, to allow for weapons at hand...not necessarily that existing weapons laws for each Nationstate be violated.

But, the point is moot, alas I did not (nor do I yet) fully understand this "branding" for which my proposal was deleted.

Respectfully,

Kalixt Shawxo,
Ambassador Emeritus of Liberty United
Right. I'll try to explain:

Your proposal contained the line "The Free land of Liberty United, does hereby submit to the NS United Nations the following:"

That's branding. Your name appears at the top of the proposal automatically, so there's no need to put it in again. The only case in which you would include another name is if there was a co-author, in which case you could put: "co-authored by Gruenberg" but not the pretitle, so not "co-authored by the Sultanate of Gruenberg".

1. This is illegal as it stands: check the rules on branding (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465).
I'm courious how this resolution violates the limited branding only rule. I don't see a single reference to any specific nationstate in the entire proposed resolution.

One of the biggest problems I see with the resolution as written is the long standing tradition of Eminent Domain, "a right of a government to take private property for public use by virtue of the superior dominion of the sovereign power over all lands within its jurisdiction." Clearly there are cases where a government can take property although most governments require due compensation for it. In some cases like dam building where property could be severaly destroyed by government action the government should have the right to remove people by force if necessary.