NationStates Jolt Archive

Members of the Forums,

Here is a copy of the resolution I wish to submit. But before I do so again, I would really appreciate any feedback or advice you may have. Thank you. Any suggestions regarding the re-wording of the resolution will be accepted with open arms. Thank you again.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greetings to the members of the World Assembly,

INTRODUCTION:

This Document is one of significant consequence, to both the Civilian and the State. The right to bear arms, a right that some nations follow and some don't. A right, some nations are unsure about, or completely ignore. It is the right, Ladies and Gentlemen of the World Assembly, that must have its final imprint stamped into all Nations. The right to bears arms is as follows:

"A person may, at his own expense, any or all expenses, choose, by his/her own inalienable right, to purchase, keep, use in any method within the laws of any given Nation, sell, reserve, and/or withhold any type of weaponry limited to standard armament laws, (E.G. No WMDs, No ICBM's, etc. [Unless with Government Approval]) at his/her own home, any property owned by him/her, and/or at any home or property sanctioned by, with permission of, the immediate owner of the vicinity."

In Short, a person may buy, own, and/or sell, any weapon within the limits of the law, and keep his/her weapon at any location owned by himself/herself, or at any place with permission of the immediate owner.

The Laws of Concealed weaponry is entirely up to the pending Nation and will not be discussed here.

THE RIGHTS OF THIS AGREEMENT PLACED UNTO THE NATIONS OF THE WA:

This agreement has only 5 sections to it which shall be imposed unto WA member Nations if passed.

1. Any person over the age 18 shall be able to purchase, own, and/or sell any weapons within limiting law of the Nation.

2. Any person over the age of 18 may at his/her own choice, carry, those said weapons, into public, whilst in view and not concealed, depending on the host Nation's Governmental law.

3. Any person over the age of 18 may NOT carry a weapon into any place whilst it conflicts with the will and rules of the immediate owner of the said place.

4. Any person over the age of 18 may use weaponry in self-defense, and even so, may be subject to Trial at Court to determine if the use was legitimate. That said person may also use weaponry to hunt with proper licenses and only in hunting areas as allowed per the Government or the immediate owner if not public land.

5. With the purchasing, owning, and selling of weaponry, a person over the age of 18 may also purchase, own, and sell ammunition for any weaponry legalized with this agreement. (E.G. A person may not own Uranium-235 unless given permission from the Government.)

CONCLUSION:

Again, it is a person's inalienable right as a man and as a citizen of any given nation, to be able to exercise his/her right as a human being to purchase, own, or sell weaponry within legal limits.

I ask only that we allow anyone over the age of 18 to exercise his natural right, and to know that it is within the law to do so. I am not asking you to take away or give anything to the Nations of the WA, I ask simply that you allow your citizens to take hold of a right that is by nature so his/hers.

Thank you for your time, Ladies and Gentlemen of the World Assembly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This resolution needs drastic re-drafting before it can be considered a law. the liberal use of words such as "shall" and "may" make it totally inoperative and do not achieve the stated aims of the authors of this statute since they allow for procrastination on the part of w.a. member states and for these states to continue to deny actual possession of weaponry.

We should point out that wildly insisting that citizens of member states have an " inalienable right " to bear arms does not make it true and will certainly and rightly in our view face very strong opposition from member states who believe that common possession of firearms has the effect of increasing violent and unlawful death and pushing up overall crime rates. Even if this resolution is re-drafted into something approaching a law the government of the Emperor of Urgench will oppose it. But we do wish the authors of this resolution luck with their endeavour none the less.


yours e.t.c. ,

It is the right, Ladies and Gentlemen of the World Assembly, that must have its final imprint stamped into all Nations.

I ask only ...

I am not asking ...

Thank you for your time, Ladies and Gentlemen of the World Assembly.

It's a law, not a speech or an essay. Take out the personalizing stuff and stick to legal matters, please.

The Land of Spam as a whole agrees that giving people guns would make the public executions less fun.

I would personally remove the age of 18 and use something else. Age of majority or some other defined age for the resolution. Some nations have an age of majority of 12, 15, 17, whatever, at which age guns would be allowed.

The age of 18 may work for your nation, but please keep in mind that it won't work for all nations.

With some tweaking, Rutianas would support this type of proposal, seeing that all individuals over the age of 16 are allowed a sidearm of some sorts due to extensive military training.

Paula Jenner - Rutianas Ambassador

Only military personal who are hand picked for the Blood Guard or are high ranking enough are allowed to carry fire arms in the cities.

In Short, a person may buy, own, and/or sell, any weapon within the limits of the law, and keep his/her weapon at any location owned by himself/herself, or at any place with permission of the immediate owner.
I've very glad that this is part of the preamble essay rather than actual operative law. Otherwise it would have to be pretty high up my list of "Insanely dangerously stupid laws I have seen".

1. Any person over the age 18 shall be able to purchase, own, and/or sell any weapons within limiting law of the Nation.
The rider I underlined gives nations free rein to pass applicable laws like "You need a permit to own a gun. Permits are not given out to anyone, for any reason." That makes it a pretty pointless clause, all things considered.

2. Any person over the age of 18 may at his/her own choice, carry, those said weapons, into public, whilst in view and not concealed, depending on the host Nation's Governmental law.
Guess what? Our national law of "You may only carry a gun in public if you are a soldier on duty" fits with this clause just fine.

3. Any person over the age of 18 may NOT carry a weapon into any place whilst it conflicts with the will and rules of the immediate owner of the said place.
This makes armed police raids a tad difficult.

4. Any person over the age of 18 may use weaponry in self-defense, and even so, may be subject to Trial at Court to determine if the use was legitimate. That said person may also use weaponry to hunt with proper licenses and only in hunting areas as allowed per the Government or the immediate owner if not public land.
This is two different things, really. The second one makes my boss happy, him being a keen hunter, but letting the landowner overrule the Government is a very bad idea. It would allow individuals to set up "Endangered Species Hunts" for example.

5. With the purchasing, owning, and selling of weaponry, a person over the age of 18 may also purchase, own, and sell ammunition for any weaponry legalized with this agreement. (E.G. A person may not own Uranium-235 unless given permission from the Government.)
This really belongs with 1, and inherits the same flaw.

Again, it is a person's inalienable right as a man and as a citizen of any given nation, to be able to exercise his/her right as a human being to purchase, own, or sell weaponry within legal limits.
"Within legal limits" can mean "not at all", which is just fine by me. It's the only way you're going to get me to admit anything even remotely resembling that "right".

In summary: nice try, and almost useless enough to get my vote. Unfortunately clause 4 is a bit of a killer.

It is the belief of the Peoples of Sasquatchewain that private ownership of firearms is a mistake. Many a study by our government point to the fact that, in terms of security, gun ownership is, in fact, detrimental, with an (attempted) armed response greatly increasing (instead of decreasing) the odds of the victim being injured.

It is the belief of the Peoples of Sasquatchewain that private ownership of firearms is a mistake. Many a study by our government point to the fact that, in terms of security, gun ownership is, in fact, detrimental, with an (attempted) armed response greatly increasing (instead of decreasing) the odds of the victim being injured.

Odd, our government studies prove the opposite. Of course, every citizen of Rutianas has had military training, including the handling and use of firearms. Perhaps that has something to do with the vast differences in studies.

Paula Jenner - Rutianas Ambassador

While our nation agrees that it is an individual's right to own weapons, every nation should deal with the issue in their own way according to their government.

We just aren't sure that there should be a WA resolution governing it.

While our nation agrees that it is an individual's right to own weapons, every nation should deal with the issue in their own way according to their government.

We just aren't sure that there should be a WA resolution governing it.

What they said.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I would personally remove the age of 18 and use something else. Age of majority or some other defined age for the resolution. Some nations have an age of majority of 12, 15, 17, whatever, at which age guns would be allowed.

The age of 18 may work for your nation, but please keep in mind that it won't work for all nations.

With some tweaking, Rutianas would support this type of proposal, seeing that all individuals over the age of 16 are allowed a sidearm of some sorts due to extensive military training.




the ambassador is right. the language should be changed to ..... something like.. anyone above the age of maturity in the specific nation... or something of the sort in order to allow this proposal to encompass more nations. and it will alienate less nations and gain more support.

i also have a problem with the regulations. you only talk about age regulations. what about mental destabilization? is a mentally disablled person above the age of maturity allowed to purchase a weapon? what about criminals or people with criminal records? beaters? rapests? killers? ...etc. do you see what i'm saying?

Wachichi

Odd, our government studies prove the opposite. Of course, every citizen of Rutianas has had military training, including the handling and use of firearms. Perhaps that has something to do with the vast differences in studies.

Paula Jenner - Rutianas Ambassador

Indeed, that is a valid point. While Sasquatchewain does have a mandatory one-year stay in the army, we cannot truthfully state that all of our men and women are well-trained enough with firearms in order to efficiently handle and maintain their weapons years after this period in our military forces. With the somewhat recent enactment of tighter gun-control laws, our police forces have found accidental death rates to have decreased significantly within houses which previously owned firearms, and the average price for a black-market weapon has increased due to the decrease in supply of weapons stolen from innocent citizens, which had been shown to contribute up to 23% of the weapons in the hands of violent criminals.

weapons good, public executions better.

It is the opinion of the government of Dysphonia that this clause;

"... within limiting law of the Nation...." (emphasis added)

... essentially negates the entire proposal. Any Nation which currently disallows the individual ownership will continue to do so. It renders the entire resolution pointless and a waste of paper.

i'm curious to know if the respected ambassador who wrote this proposal is going to make any of the suggested changes? has he even been to this forum lately?

Wachichi

Our government is also of the opinion that a law like this should be on a national level rather than enforced through the world assembly.