NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's what I'm up to, or "to what up I am." I have revised Protection of Legal Residency further...again...numerously...and though I plan to resubmit it, and continue to do so until it passes, I need suggestions and a new name for it.

If you have any changes to make, quote the part you would change and rewrite it to best suit your twisted views beneath.

Aqui esta el articulo:

In light of the growing crime rates and dangerous circumstances in many nations,

Understanding the need for safe handling of armaments and weaponry,

Intending for the well-being of individuals, homes, communities, and following divisions and inclusions,

It will be necessary that individuals can sustain themselves against the corrupt and the followers of corrupt law when stated citizens are deemed capable of determining such and suited for executing protective justice in solely the confines of their immediate property, or when such property is not deemed to be their property or yet property, their immediate residence; all of which will be examined in its following.

UN MANDATES that "protective justice" is as follows:

1)Protective justice is defined as being the use of armaments in an immediate or impending situation where a citizen is the most competent and necessary form of protection for a single residency of one household, as judged by following trial of all involved parties in the incident.

2)The granted "armaments" are not to be used outside of the intended protected household, nor are they to be used upon an entity outside said boundary from within a household, if the protecting party is to be defended by this here-stated law (Protection of Legal Residency).

3)Being that this is a protective measure, in each occurrence where protective justice is administered, that instance of protective justice must be examined in light of an unbiased trial where it is assumed that no party is either innocent nor guilty until proven such by thus needed judicial process and setting.

3A)In this time of legal determination, both parties must be subject to the same terms of pre-sentencing, including, but not limited to, temporary imprisonment or any various directions of questioning.

3B)Fines may not be imposed on either party until the termination of the trial wherein all parties are found guilty or innocent through due process.

4)That aforementioned judicial setting must be one that in effort to be unbiased, must be outside of any relation to affected parties (especially in an incident including, but not limited to, local, regional, or federal law enforcement).

Legal citizens of UN countries may only be protected by this law when inclusive of ALL following conditions:

1)Said legal citizen is in the country to which they owe recognized allegiance.

2)Said legal citizen is in a capable mental state (not allowing for times of intoxication or altered consciousness).

3)Said legal citizen has been educated in a six hour course that covers and explains safe and proper use of armaments (including exclusively: firearms, battery weapons, hand combat, and tools of laceration).

4)Said legal citizen has the paperwork for registration of the gun, personal competence, and documentation previously mentioned in this statement.

Are you proposing that in case of a crime, you have a right to shoot someone, but must be prepared to defend your shooting in court? That's what I gather, but I'm not sure, so I want to make sure I understand you before responding to the context.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

That's pretty much what this intends. I think I'm also going to add a section on certain types of armaments not acceptable for this method of licensing, as follows:

"No longarm (rifle or shotgun) with a barrel below 29 centimeters.

No belt-fed weapons.

No military explosives of any sort (grenades, plastic compounds, rockets, missiles, rocket-propelled grenades, mortars).

Devices to fire military explosives of any sort (grenade launchers, RPG launchers, mortars).

No .50 BMG caliber weapons.

No fully-automatic or burst-fire capable firearms of any sort."

The intent of this is to protect more against the common criminal than the radical terrorist, if you were to inquire about the list.

We don't mean to be disrespectful or unduly negative, but we're going to be 100% honest with you. This draft is so convoluted and complicated that it made our eyes cross. You've obviously put a lot of effort into this, and you have some ideas worth considering. But we can't see many of our colleagues in the NSUN spending the time to unravel those ideas from the verbiage. We honestly think, if this came to a vote, you'd have to spend twice as much time trying to explain what it meant and didn't mean as you would defending the actual content.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Alert:

There is a 3500 character limit including all spaces and characters - line breaks sometimes count as two characters, depending on various things. Are you sure you are under that limit?

Actually, isn't this already covered in resolution #94: Right to Self-Protection? (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Right_to_Self-Protection)

We don't mean to be disrespectful or unduly negative, but we're going to be 100% honest with you. This draft is so convoluted and complicated that it made our eyes cross. You've obviously put a lot of effort into this, and you have some ideas worth considering. But we can't see many of our colleagues in the NSUN spending the time to unravel those ideas from the verbiage. We honestly think, if this came to a vote, you'd have to spend twice as much time trying to explain what it meant and didn't mean as you would defending the actual content.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large


Yeah, it does seem wordy, but you're mom's favorite if you can find any loopholes worth threading.

Alert:

There is a 3500 character limit including all spaces and characters - line breaks sometimes count as two characters, depending on various things. Are you sure you are under that limit?

Last time i tried to submit this, it was under that limit. Besides, I've seen longer yet.

Actually, isn't this already covered in resolution #94: Right to Self-Protection? (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Right_to_Self-Protection)

No it's not really covered by that law because that says nothing regarding firearm usage, only "reasonable" defense, and my ass if that isn't subject to any opinion you'd like.

Anyhow, does anyone have any other suggestions for a name. It seems irrelevant, but still, the title could still improve.

Here's what I think should be the final thing:

In light of the growing crime rates and dangerous circumstances in many nations,

Understanding the need for safe handling of armaments and weaponry,

Intending for the well-being of individuals, homes, communities, and following divisions and inclusions,

It will be necessary that individuals can sustain themselves against the corrupt and the followers of corrupt law when stated citizens are deemed capable of determining such and suited for executing protective justice in solely the confines of their immediate property, or when such property is not deemed to be their property or yet property, their immediate residence; all of which will be examined in its following.

UN MANDATES that "protective justice" is as follows:

1)Protective justice is defined as being the use of armaments in an immediate or impending situation where a citizen is the most competent and necessary form of protection for a single residency of one household, as judged by following trial of all involved parties in the incident.

2)The granted "armaments" are not to be used outside of the intended protected household, nor are they to be used upon an entity outside said boundary from within a household, if the protecting party is to be defended by this here-stated law (You Loot, We Shoot).

3)Being that this is a protective measure, in each occurrence where protective justice is administered, that instance of protective justice must be examined in light of an unbiased trial where it is assumed that no party is either innocent nor guilty until proven such by thus needed judicial process and setting.

3A)In this time of legal determination, both parties must be subject to the same terms of pre-sentencing, including, but not limited to, temporary imprisonment or any various directions of questioning.

3B)Fines may not be imposed on either party until the termination of the trial wherein all parties are found guilty or innocent through due process.

4)That aforementioned judicial setting must be one that in effort to be unbiased, must be outside of any relation to affected parties (especially in an incident including, but not limited to, local, regional, or federal law enforcement).

Legal citizens of UN countries may only be protected by this law when inclusive of ALL following conditions:

1)Said legal citizen is in the country to which they owe recognized allegiance.

2)Said legal citizen is in a capable mental state (not allowing for times of intoxication or altered consciousness).

3)Said legal citizen has been educated in a six hour course that covers and explains safe and proper use of armaments (including exclusively: firearms, battery weapons, hand combat, and tools of laceration).

4)Said legal citizen has the paperwork for registration of the gun, personal competence, and documentation previously mentioned in this statement.

4A)Registration and paperwork does not cover the following weaponry, which is to be allowed, encouraged, or prohibited on an individual basis by affected countries: longarms (rifles or shotguns) with a barrel below 29 centimeters, belt-fed weapons, military explosives of any sort (including, but not restricted to: grenades, plastic compounds, rockets, missiles, rocket-propelled grenades, mortars), devices to fire military explosives of any sort (including, but not restricted to: grenade launchers, RPG launchers, mortars), .50 BMG caliber weapons, fully-automatic or burst-fire capable firearms of any likeness.

4B)Stated weaponry do not qualify for registrational acknowledgment from the United Nations, but neither are they prohibited in use or possession by this proposal.

Man shoots police officer entering with a warrant, claims he didn't hear them yell "Police officers, we have a warrant!" upon entering. If it can't be proven otherwise in court, he would be completely protected by this proposal. I'm not sure I like that notion.

If there is some way to ensure that this proposal cannot be used as a shield for gun-toting maniacs who've been looking for an excuse to grease a cop, I'd like to hear it before I support or condemn this.

As Ausserland said, though, it really is pretty convoluted. It's just a little too late for me to look for ways to fix it right now though.

That's pretty much what this intends. I think I'm also going to add a section on certain types of armaments not acceptable for this method of licensing, as follows:

"No longarm (rifle or shotgun) with a barrel below 29 centimeters.

No belt-fed weapons.

No military explosives of any sort (grenades, plastic compounds, rockets, missiles, rocket-propelled grenades, mortars).

Devices to fire military explosives of any sort (grenade launchers, RPG launchers, mortars).

No .50 BMG caliber weapons.

No fully-automatic or burst-fire capable firearms of any sort."

The intent of this is to protect more against the common criminal than the radical terrorist, if you were to inquire about the list.

Shit. There goes my arsenal for home defense. I'll be opposing this.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

One other note, you may also think about trying to answer multiple posts in the same reply. The last 15 posts you can find if you scroll down in the reply page and the QUOTE tags are fairly simple to duplicate. It just makes it easier to read through threads.

Are you mandating that all nations must allow citizens to use penis extensions...err sorry, guns, for self protection, or just regulating those that already do allow it?

I can't tell from the text because it is a bit confusing.

Either way, I'd never support this as written because I feel nations are quite capable of deciding their own gun laws, and I also don't feel the UN needs to meddle in its member nations justice systems, which vary from nation to nation. A one size fits all approch just wouldn't work. My own nation for instance doesn't need guns. We are a nation of witches and every person is a walking talking weapon.

I would be more supportive of a milder version that outlined what you want to achieve, and urged, encouraged nations to adopt those standards. For example urging us all to allow our citizens to own guns, and regulate their use. Then going on to set up the self protection side of gun use, but again only encouraging nations to allow it. That may go down better.

Ye gods, we just had ransacking, arson and looting on a grand scale, and now you want to give us guns? Are you insane?

Anegri Favon,
UN Rep for the Remnants of Enn

In terms of how this would operate in Ardchoille, my response is the same as Witchcliff's, and I suspect it would be the same from many of the other magical nations.

In more general terms, remember that, for many nations, the "right" to bear any arms at all, or any offensive weapon, including a sharpened table-knife, is not a "right" at all, but a very strictly limited and rather irksome responsibility. I know, your resolution isn't about the "right" part, but it seems to assume that owning weapons legally is universal. It's not.

But in the most general terms, I think this is not so much about "bearing arms" as it is about the concept "protective justice", so I would suggest you re-jig your proposal to highlight that.

That is, I'd suggest you define what protective justice is {not "mandate" it), you enumerate reasons for supporting it, and you state what you want the NS UN to do about it -- adopt it, urge member nations to adopt it, urge that they support it, urge that they take note of it (although that last one would be so weak it would probably get thrown out before it got anywhere).

I'm afraid I find this paragraph particularly confusing:

It will be necessary that individuals can sustain themselves against the corrupt and the followers of corrupt law when stated citizens are deemed capable of determining such and suited for executing protective justice in solely the confines of their immediate property, or when such property is not deemed to be their property or yet property, their immediate residence; all of which will be examined in its following.

I think you're saying that individuals have a right to resist corrupt law and the followers of corrupt law. This would be an instant loophole, because a nation could simply say that your proposal does not apply to them because their laws are not corrupt.

{However, I won't claim your promise to make me Mum's favourite, because I'm not sure that that's what the paragraph I quoted meant.)

So, yeah: with more work, this might become a proposal you could submit. The thing is, would you want it to be, if nations are already telling you that they couldn't support its basic concept?

I'm not sure why it's called a "non-liberal" gun law because it seems alarmingly liberal to me. Essentially, if I read correctly, you're essentially making it legal for people to use firearms against other people for no other reason that because trespassing is taking place.

Now there's a legitimate case for self-defence if the property in question is an apartment, but what if it's a guy who owns a large rural property, up in a tower with a sniper rifle. A public road runs through it. Wouldn't this then legally justify him shooting anyone who steps off the public road and, technically, onto his property?

The idea of proportionate response - for instance, it isn't self defence if the burglar isn't armed, doesn't make any threatening moves and you decide to shoot him with an assault rifle, also isn't taken into consideration. Although I suppose that would be part of what the court could decide.

I also have a problem with your choice of words here. You're calling it "justice", for one. Justice is something most nations entrust to their judiciary, and not to individual citizens who might have other ideas about what "justice" entails. It implies a degree of vigilatism that I'm sure many nations which value the rule of law will find uncomfortable.

Finally, what is the definition of "corrupt law"? Who gets to decide that?

As for the text itself:

4)That aforementioned judicial setting must be one that in effort to be unbiased, must be outside of any relation to affected parties (especially in an incident including, but not limited to, local, regional, or federal law enforcement).

You also should really use the word "national" there because not all nations have federal systems.

Also it's spelt "armanents".

The government of the St Edmundan Antarctic is opposed to this idea, on the grounds that policy in such matters should be left for the nations' governments to determine separately rather than set by the UN.

Also it's spelt "armanents".
I agree with much of what you have said, but it's "armaments."

My bad.

Yeah, it does seem wordy, but you're mom's favorite if you can find any loopholes worth threading.

We guess we didn't make ourselves clear. It's not wordiness that bothers us. Sometimes, a proposal has to be long to cover all the bases. But the language of the proposal has to be clear, unambiguous, and no more complicated than it has to be. This one fails all three of those tests.

We're not that fond of prospecting for loopholes, but since you asked, we'll just look at one subclause.

4)Said legal citizen has the paperwork for registration of the gun, personal competence, and documentation previously mentioned in this statement.

Loophole #1: Our nation has no gun registration requirement. Nothing -- including this proposal -- says we have to. So the whole proposal is meaningless for us. We can just ignore it.

Loophole #2: "Personal competence" is undefined by the proposal. That means we could define it any way we want -- including possession of a PhD in criminology. If we don't want the proposal to have any effect in our nation, we'll just do that.

And not a loophole -- just a meaningless requirement.... There is no "documentation previously mentioned in this statement".

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Loophole #2: "Personal competence" is undefined by the proposal. That means we could define it any way we want -- including possession of a PhD in criminology. If we don't want the proposal to have any effect in our nation, we'll just do that.
Or having graduated from the Ceorana Police Academy, for that matter.

Ellen Perionas
Director, Suboffice of Technical Legislative and Legal Matters, Ceorana UN Office

3)Being that this is a protective measure, in each occurrence where protective justice is administered, that instance of protective justice must be examined in light of an unbiased trial where it is assumed that no party is either innocent nor guilty until proven such by thus needed judicial process and setting.

3A)In this time of legal determination, both parties must be subject to the same terms of pre-sentencing, including, but not limited to, temporary imprisonment or any various directions of questioning.

3B)Fines may not be imposed on either party until the termination of the trial wherein all parties are found guilty or innocent through due process.

4)That aforementioned judicial setting must be one that in effort to be unbiased, must be outside of any relation to affected parties (especially in an incident including, but not limited to, local, regional, or federal law enforcement). This reads like something most nations already have or are suppose to have in place in their legal system to deal with murder and taking a person to trial accused of it so why do we need it here?

1)Said legal citizen is in the country to which they owe recognized allegiance. :So if said citizen from my nation owns property in another nation to which they are not a citizen this don't apply to them as they can't protect that property under this since they not citizens of the nation they own said property in.

2)Said legal citizen is in a capable mental state (not allowing for times of intoxication or altered consciousness).So we can get drunk and go out and kill somebody and nothing will be done.. or take some dope and get high and kill somebody..

3)Said legal citizen has been educated in a six hour course that covers and explains safe and proper use of armaments (including exclusively: firearms, battery weapons, hand combat, and tools of laceration).We feel this is okay but require longer training before anyone gets to own any weapon.

4)Said legal citizen has the paperwork for registration of the gun, personal competence, and documentation previously mentioned in this statement.So when and who is going to do all this testing as currently many nations don't do anything toward testing to see if a person is crazy enough to own a gun let alone able to decide when to use one. Then many of the documents required are not in some nations so do they have to start keeping them.

The idea is a good one but we feel that national laws on use assault with a gun would cover this and also give persons who use one the same rights anyone who goes to trail for a crime or possible crime would get. As far as not guilty until found so that we believe is already applied so not needed as a special part of this. We treat all crimes as such and give no special considerations for person charged with one before they are tried and plan not to change how we deal with them.