NationStates Jolt Archive

United Nations Gun Control Protocol (version 2.0 after substantial rewrite by SilentScope) EDIT 2345 PST 20 Jan 2008
Category: Gun Control
Decision: Tighten

RECOGNIZING the various international perspectives on gun control,

UNDERSTANDING that each United Nations member state has the right to govern its people in any way it sees fit provided it does not violate any existing UN resolution,

ACKNOWLEDGING that each UN member state is unique, and that, because of various political or cultural factors, a gun control policy that may be acceptable in one country may or may not be acceptable in another,

DEEPLY CONCERNED at the growth of the international arms trade, especially when it would violates national law,

EXPRESSING DEEP SORROW at the problems that the international arms trade can cause, including political instablity,

SEEKING to stop the growth of the international arms trade in order to ensure that each UN memberstate is free to decide its own gun control policy,

The United Nations hereby,

1. PROHIBITS UN nations from exporting weapons to other UN nations who has choosen to prohibit those weapons,

2. MANDATES that all UN Nations must respect and obey the gun control laws of other UN nations when dealing with those nations,

3. REAFFIRMS the responsiblity of the International Criminal Police Information Network to organize efforts to find those who engage in the illegal trafficking of arms,

4. CALLS on all nations to support the ICPIN in hunting down the illegal trafficking of arms, regardless of their own personal views on gun control,

5. DECLARES that each UN member state has the right and responsibility to regulate guns within its borders in whatever way it chooses.

We restate our long-standing opposition to 'blocker' resolutions. If the future UN assembly desires to make legislation on a subject it should not have to go through the manoeuvre of repealing an empty resolution. If ambassadors do not wish to see future legislation on a subject they should oppose such legislation through the normal channels.

http://www.safalra.com/hotlinkable/solensina-tadefta.png



OOC: The specific phrasing of these two clauses may be illegal. While a blocker resolution obviously has these effects, I believe it's illegal to state that the UN has no jurisdiction on an issue (instead, phrase it to say that the UN does not restrict nation's ability to legislate on the issue) or to place restrictions on future resolutions (the rule about contradiction handles this case anyway).
2. DECLARES that the UN has no jurisdiction in gun control, except regarding regulation of the international arms trade or within its own halls,

3. DECLARES that the UN will never pass any resolution restricting the right of a UN member state to determine its own gun control policy.

Oooh, a "blocker". Techincally, we are against them, but why not today?

Get rid of Clause 2 and Clause 3. They'll scare away voters and may in fact be illegal, and besides, Clause 1 is sufficient enough to prohibit international legalisation on Gun Control. If a nation has the full right to decide what they want to do with guns, then Clause 2 and Clause 3 is useless. Get rid of them.

More importantly, however, you might want to use this legalisation to LEGALISTE on International Trafficking of Guns, to showcase what the UN is supposed to do with gun control. Then, we could argue it just goes and "tighten" gun regulations...after all, the last thing we want to do is to allow the free trade of guns in countries that prohibit them.

Here's a new draft, but I haven't paid much attention to the preamble:

Category: Gun Control
Decision: Tighten

RECOGNIZING the various international perspectives on gun control,

UNDERSTANDING that each United Nations member state has the right to govern its people in any way it sees fit provided it does not violate any existing UN resolution,

ACKNOWLEDGING that each UN member state is unique, and that, because of various political or cultural factors, a gun control policy that may be acceptable in one country may or may not be acceptable in another,

DEEPLY CONCERNED at the growth of the international arms trade, especially when it would violates national law,

EXPRESSES DEEP SORROW at the problems that the international arms trade can cause, including political instablity,

SEEKING to stop the growth of the international arms trade in order to ensure that each UN memberstate is free to decide its own gun control policy,

The United Nations hereby,

1. PROHIBITS UN nations from exporting weapons to other UN nations who has choosen to prohibit those weapons,

2. REAFFIRMS the responsiblity of the International Criminal Police Information Network to organize efforts to find those who engage in the illegal trafficking of arms,

3. CALLS on all nations to support the ICPIN in hunting down the illegal trafficking of arms, regardless of their own personal views on gun control,

4. DECLARES that each UN member state has the right and responsibility to regulate guns within its borders in whatever way it chooses,
----Dr. Bob

Post Script: Er, you know, I'm thinking it would be a much better fit if you have it be "Political Stablity, MILD" instead. The reason we don't allow for the illegal trafficking of arms, anyway, is to ensure the stablity of the nation.

I'd also like to add in some clause mandating the extraditation of arms dealers (in case the arms dealers live in a nation that allows for the free trade of guns and is very pro-gun)...except in the case where they disagree on punishment (to allow people to reject extraditation if the nation that punishes gun control uses the 'death penatly'...torture is illegal in the NSUN).

EDIT: Er...sorry then OMGTKK. My bad for rewriting the proposal. Just wanted to help...er..

This bill is entirely illegal; even "blocker" resolutions have to do more than just "block." You have to include at least token provisions advising member states in the issue. For example: "URGES member states to institute background checks for all persons seeking to purchase firearms in their borders"; "STRONGLY ENCOURAGES member states to require child-safety locks ..."; etc., etc. If all a resolution does is "block," then it's not so much a "resolution" as it is an obstruction.

EDIT: SS, don't rewrite other people's proposals without consulting with them first. It's not polite. Simply suggest changes, and wait for the author to implement them.

The Principality of Beaucalsradt would support it, if it has the members instituting gun protocols; i.e. have them take a clear position, preferably -though commonsensical- not issuing guns, or licences, to known criminals, and instituting tests, for the ability and psychological fitness to own and handle a gun.

Might I take the opportunity to ask what could be done with weapons other than fire arms?

Respectfully,

Count de Saint-Germain à Clerques,
National Emissary to the NSUN
for the Principality of Beaucalsradt

My nation also keeps up the honourable tradition of combat with bladed weapons and since every woman serves in the Starfleet for their term of service they get to be good with them.

You couldn't include swords, tasers, crossbows etc in this simply because they are not firearms.

There have been proposals to legalise or to ban firearms since the UN was founded in 2002. Only one has made it to quorum, a probably miscategorised resolution about international black market arms transfers (hence, firearms that are already illegal); it failed, but was subsequently passed under a different category.

So, why exactly the need for this? Where are these gun-grabbing/gun-peddling charlatans on the verge of denuding you of your sovereignty? This is as unnecessary as was the UN Drug Act.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust

"As QoD has pointed out, there is already a resolution banning black arms trade. Which was far better than mine ever could.

Er. Sorry for the proposal editing and suggestion then. I do think it is rather unlikely that a blocker about guns would then be necessary, except if you want to merely 'urge' for us to stop banning guns, in order to make it 'legal', which would make us rather upset and gain our AGAINST vote.

Though I really would like the possiblity of encouraging those who desire firearms to go and leave to other nations that tolerate the barbaric practice of 'self-defense'. You want to have guns, then you should go somewhere else instead of just complaining."
---Dr. Bob

First and foremost, I would like to apoligize for submitting such a poor proposal. I neglected my responsibility to read the rules and submitted a "blocker resolution" to the board. My intention was to pass a law that allowed each nation to formulate its own gun control policy.

Second, I take no offense at SilentScope's rewrite. I feel that his/her rewritten proposal is much closer to the spirit I was aiming for than the ham-fisted one I wound up submitting.

I again apoligize for my lack of judgment and hope to be able to make a positive difference in the NS world.

-Burgen Alsonis, Ambassador to the UN

OOC: I feel guilty submitting this new proposal, which was, for all practical purposes, written by SilentScope. I'm inclined to just bow out and let SS take credit for it.

(OOC: Probraly be best to slip in a "Co-Written by SilentScope003" credit in there if you still want to run with this resolution. I'd be okay with you doing this, especially since I don't have time to play NS or run TG campagins. Good luck on the blocker.)

STRONGLY ENCOURAGES UN member states that allow gun ownership to mandate background checks or similar safeguards to ensure that guns do not fall into the hands of those who cannot use or be trusted to use guns responsibly.

Who exactly can not be trusted? This is a very vaugue statement. Anybody under these parameters can be deemed "not able to use or be trusted to use guns responsibly." We oppose this resolution.

Eskimo Pie

- Alaska 1 Ambassador to UN

Alaska 1, it says 'strongly encourage'. You can ignore it if you want.

---Dr. Bob

OOC: (You might want to take out clauses 5 and 6. Anti-"gun control" forces may take offense on that, and will go against it. You want to have as much support as possible if you want to pass this blocker. Besides, Strongly Encourages does nothing really. If we are having nations decide for themselves, and at the same time trying to allow for nations to decide while forcing down one ideology, that would be seen as, uh, hypocritical.

I also realize adding in a Clause 2 right after Clause 1 might also be a good idea, in order to close any loopholes:

1. PROHIBITS UN nations from exporting weapons to other UN nations who has choosen to prohibit those weapons,

2. MANDATES that all UN Nations must respect and obey the gun control laws of other UN nations when dealing with those nations,)

More importantly, however, you might want to use this legalisation to LEGALISTE on International Trafficking of Guns, to showcase what the UN is supposed to do with gun control. Then, we could argue it just goes and "tighten" gun regulations...after all, the last thing we want to do is to allow the free trade of guns in countries that prohibit them.This may under the title of the proposal work into it but the below we feel is a separate issue and may be addressed in another active resolution on extradition.. if it is not addressed directly in the other but the other addresses extridition policies in general then it would be ammending the current one to add separate considerations for arms dealers. As criminals are criminals.. and it is a criminal one request extridition on not just arms dealers...


I'd also like to add in some clause mandating the extraditation of arms dealers (in case the arms dealers live in a nation that allows for the free trade of guns and is very pro-gun)...except in the case where they disagree on punishment (to allow people to reject extraditation if the nation that punishes gun control uses the 'death penatly'...torture is illegal in the NSUN). Again we believe this is already covered in a current resolution.. so you can't ammend it just repeal it and add new one. Or then cover it here...


Also where is it established that my nation can't keep weapons or any other thing out of our borders..? We have established laws like many member nations dealing with guns, drugs, and many things that we know of no UN resolution that gives a citizen of another nation a right to come in and violate those laws and not be punished for their crimes. So why is this needed we can make laws to control things in our borders as we see fit. If we want no clothing here and you want to wear them then... you don't visit us... unless you naked. So try to come here with guns and drugs that are not legal.... we will show you our prisons.. If our citizens go to your nation and break your laws then do what you would do to your own with them... or send them back to us and if what they did violates our laws we will deal with them.

...doesn't this effectively excise an entire category (Gun Control) from what proposals can be about? If that's not a blocker I'm not sure what is.

~ Hari Desana

Given that we can think of elements of gun regulation that can usefully be done on an internationally co-operative basis, we could not support clause 5. Since that's what you actually want passed, that rather sinks our support for the whole proposal.

OOC: (Besides, Strongly Encourages does nothing really. If we are having nations decide for themselves, and at the same time trying to allow for nations to decide while forcing down one ideology, that would be seen as, uh, hypocritical.)

OOC: then again, isn't that exactly what many real political bodies are doing?

Cavirra: A quick search has revealed there is some resolutions on extradition, and I decide dropping that request is probraly the best thing to do. But, I think the NSUN must legalisate on this issue. The resolution that QoD showed to this body did so, but only for 'small arms', and it may not be as effective.

There is a point however to this resolution. An "Arms Dealer" Nation may seek to sell weapons to rebels and criminals in my country. Now, he would be breaking national law. But would he be breaking international law? Your nation might be strong enough to fight off 'Arms Dealers', but what about my nation? And what if the Arms Dealer makes up some excuse about 'saving SilentScope from those godless commies' in order to make his selling of weapons look...well, okay? Well, we can't stop the arms dealer then.

By making it an international violation to sell weapons illegally, this would ensure that the Arms Dealer nation does not threaten the stablity of my nation by selling illegal guns. Since following UN resolutions are mandatory, this would surely cut down on illegal gun trafficking, making the world a safer place.

Gobbannium: We would be interested in knowing your ideas of what is 'legit' gun control.

(OOC: Beaucalsradt, following the NSUN's laws are mandatory, unlike IRL. It's due to gameplay, as well as due to those lovely gnomes that force complaince. So, well, I usually take a strong stand in actually using the NSUN's power to force compliance rather than just stand around and merely 'urges' stuff.)

OOC: I know, I just wanted to point out that it would not be unfitting in a political context. I must agree, that when you have the power to change something for the better, you should do so, in stead of simply mentioning it, and not actually doing it.

United Nations Gun Control Protocol (version 2.0 after substantial rewrite by SilentScope) EDIT 2345 PST 20 Jan 2008
Category: Gun Control
Decision: Tighten


1. PROHIBITS UN nations from exporting weapons to other UN nations who has choosen to prohibit those weapons,



If you are exporting weapons to a country that has banned them, that is just smuggling. I believe that part would be written out or a smuggling act be written in there.

On the surface, this sounds like a good idea.